1951-06-26

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Breithaupt.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, though there may be some hon. members who might think it a bit indiscreet for me to say anything this morning about the Dominion Elections Act, I should like to call attention to the fact that last Wednesday the special committee on this act reported a draft bill, and there was placed in Votes and Proceedings of yesterday a notice of motion with respect to the resolution necessary to introduce that bill. If I could have the consent of the house I would ask to have that resolution called so that the Secretary of State could declare the recommendation of His Excellency the Administrator, and it could then be placed upon the order paper as a government order for tomorrow.
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the ordinary
course of events I would readily concur in the suggestion, but we were assured that all the legislation that we would have to consider was before us. Amendments to the elections act should not be suddenly hurried through in the closing days of this session. I know that there is one reason put forward why it should be considered, but when it was indicated to me that this course might be followed I stated the objection I would have. It was indicated that it was hoped to hold a municipal election in the Northwest Territories. However, that would only call for a single amendment to the elections act as it stands. I would readily concur in the introduction of that amendment so that the election in question could, be proceeded with without delay, but I want to make it clear that consideration of amendments to an act as important as this should not be rushed.
It is true that amendments to the act have been considered by a committee, but there are a number of provisions in the act, relating not only to content but also to the form and wording of the sections, which might easily involve considerable discussion. For that reason, while I am most anxious to facilitate the business of the house, I do not propose to let the desire to complete that business interfere with adequate discussion of legislation coming before us.
I will agree to the introduction of notice of an amendment simply to provide for the municipal election which is under discussion, but I regret I cannot agree to any motion which would seek to bring before us at this time the whole elections act unless it is understood that we shall continue to sit for some considerable time to deal with it.


Mr. St. Laurent:: As there is not unanimous consent, the matter will just have to follow the usual course.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I think we will all admit that the Dominion Elections Act is a most important one, and that an occasion might arise between now and the time we next meet when it would be very convenient to have the amended act. If the government is intending to go ahead with it, whether or not we grant consent today is in my opinion not of very great importance. What I should like to suggest is that there are other contentious matters on the order paper, and one of them might be removed to make room for the amendments to the Dominion Elections Act which have been brought forward at this late time. I suggest that the proposed legislation with respect to judges' salaries might be dropped for this year, and that we proceed with the Dominion Elections Act amendments.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture with respect to the appointment of the body of experts to consider the South Saskatchewan river dam and irrigation plan. Has any word been received yet?

Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture): The Prime Minister tells me that no further information has been received. When the information is received, an announcement will be made by the Prime Minister as to what is to take place.



STRAIT OF CANSO BRIDGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether the commission inquiring into the Canso bridge project has finished its report? If not, when may we expect it to be completed, and will the minister bring the house up to date on that problem before the end of the session?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: The reconvened board of engineers on the Canso project has handed in its report. I expect to table it before the session is over.
(Translation):



JACQUES CARTIER BRIDGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Have negotiations been carried on or are there any under way at present with the provincial government for the purpose of removing the toll charge on the Jacques Cartier bridge?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any negotiations going on at the present time. I have had no representations made to me in connection with the removal of the toll charge on the Jacques Cartier bridge. Even if there had been, I would deal with the matter on my estimates, as I have already stated.
(Text):



REQUEST OF BRITISH COLUMBIA GROWERS WITH RESPECT TO PRICE SUPPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I
wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the request of the executive of the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association for a clear and explicit statement as to what circumstances or conditions constitute-
[Mr. Diefenbaker.I


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to put his question without prefacing it with remarks.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the request of the British Columbia fruit industry with respect to price support, is the minister prepared to make a statement on that question in answer to their request?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The order of procedure under
the Agricultural Prices Support Act is for organizations who believe that they require assistance to make an application to the agricultural prices support board. That board considers all the circumstances and makes a report on them. I would suggest that is the only procedure that can be followed.



IMPORTATIONS OF FRUIT PULP FROM HOLLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Anderson (Norfolk):: I should
like to address a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to whom I have given notice. In view of certain press reports, would the parliamentary assistant indicate how many tons of strawberry pulp have been imported into Canada this year from Holland?


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Strawberry pulp is not classified as a separate item for import purposes. It is included in the general item, fruit pulp. This year, up to the end of April, total imports of fruit pulp from Holland amounted to approximately 37 tons.



POST OFFICE ACT


Hon. Edouard Rinfret (Postmaster General) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 322, respecting the Canada Post Office.


Mr. Knowles:: What are the amendments?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: With reference to section 7 of the Post Office Act, the members of the other place thought it would be preferable if one of the commissioners to be appointed to the board of review was of the legal profession. As it was my intention to appoint a lawyer,
I have no objection to the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One out of how many?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: One out of three. The second amendment is to the same section, and is to

the effect that the board of review should not only present a report to the Postmaster General, but that the report should contain a recommendation as to what should be done.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Will there be a farmer on the board?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The other two commissioners would be members of the department.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Why a lawyer?


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask whether the solicitor who is to be appointed will likewise be a member of the staff of the department?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 403, to establish national standards for dairy products and to regulate interprovincial and international trade in dairy products.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. Wright:: Before the clause carries I should like to say a few words with regard to this matter. I am disappointed that the bill is brought forward at this late stage in the session. The bill should have gone before the standing committee on agriculture, and producer representatives should have been called to discuss the measure. It seems to me it is a mistake to bring in the bill at this late date, because it is an important measure so far as the dairy industry of Canada is concerned. It sets out the regulations under which we are going to be able to trade inter-provincially in dairy products. It sets out the standards that are to be required for dairy products in Canada, and it seems to me that the producers of those dairy products should have been called before a committee of the house to consider the matter.
So far as the producers are concerned, I have heard quite a few complaints from them in eastern Canada with respect to the undergrading of dairy products, especially cream. Individual producers are not able to get separate returns showing what their particular grades are. The product goes from the producer to the dairy and is graded there. Government graders check the grades, but
Canada Dairy Products Act the individual producer is not able to get a return with respect to his product, except the one that comes from the company purchasing his product. He is not able to get a return of the grade made by the government inspector. I know that the dairy producers of eastern Canada have been making inquiries about this matter, and that they want some changes made in the act to allow the individual producer, or the producers' representative, to obtain a return showing the grade of their particular product. They also want some method by which they can ascertain whether the grades set by the government inspectors are carried through to the ultimate consumers, and also information as to the amount of the product manufactured when they ship cream to the dairies.
A farmer gets back a test saying the butter-fat content of his cream was 30 per cent or 40 per cent or whatever it may be, but there is nothing from the manufacturer showing that the percentage indicated represents the amount of butterfat for which he has paid the producers. I know it is not the same as with grain in western Canada, where you can follow it right through. These products are being manufactured, but under the act today there is no check on the amount of butter-fat finally produced and disposed of in the form of the manufactured product. It seems to me there should be some provision in the act compelling the manufacturer to produce returns to show he was not selling a greater amount of butterfat than he was buying from the producers. It should also be possible to see that when the producer is paid on first grade cream, that grade is carried through to the consumer.
I do not think any hon. member has been able to give this bill the consideration it should have. It was on our desks when we came down this morning; we have had about two minutes to look at it, and now we are supposed to deal intelligently with it. I believe that is a mistake. This bill should should have been sent, or should be sent even now, to the agriculture committee, where it could be given proper consideration.


James Garfield Gardiner: On the first question as to consultation, the reason the bill has not been brought in until late in the session is that all parties have been consulted continuously. As will be recalled, this matter was up at the dominion-provincial agricultural meeting last December, and on that occasion we were asked to submit it to the provinces and the dairy organizations right across Canada. That has been done, and the consent of those organizations has been given to this type of legislation.

Canada Dairy Products Act


Percy Ellis Wright: Was there unanimous agreement among the producers?


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as I know, there have been no objections to the legislation. It is the only kind of legislation we can have under the circumstances. The legislation we had previously was entirely satisfactory to everyone in the dairy industry and to the various departments of agriculture across the country, but the court decision rendered that type of legislation of no effect. It is most important that there should be legislation on the statute book which is not ultra vires, and this legislation is considered to be intra vires. Of course there is nothing to prevent its being amended in succeeding sessions if any difficulty is found with it, but it does not cover the points just raised by the hon. member for Melfort. All those points are dealt with in provincial legislation; they are not covered by this legislation at all.
When a farmer in Ontario takes his cream to a creamery in this province, all matters relating to it, including grades and everything else, are dealt with in the provincial legislation. All the provincial and dominion legislation provides that we appoint the provincial inspectors as our inspectors under this act; the provinces in turn appoint our inspectors as their inspectors under their acts, and they work in co-operation. The provincial inspectors deal with intraprovincial matters such as the grading of the cream or butter or milk for use within the province, and we touch it only when it becomes interprovincial or international trade. This legislation makes that possible.


Percy Ellis Wright: But this legislation sets the standards that must be maintained by any product when it goes into interprovincial or export trade.


James Garfield Gardiner: Only if it goes into interprovincial or export trade. As long as the trade is within the province this does not affect it.


Percy Ellis Wright: But quantities of these products are exported between the provinces; therefore the standards across the dominion must be the same, which in effect means that the regulations made under this act establish the grades for the dominion.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing that says
they must be the same across the dominion. The provincial acts set out the grades for each province. By agreement we have tried to make them the same, and to all intents and purposes they are the same.


Mr. Fair:: I had intended to speak at some length in support of the arguments presented by the hon. member for Melfort, but in view


of the explanations given by the minister and his suggestion that if the act is not satisfactory it can be amended later, I will not take the time of the committee to do so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On section 6-Export or import of substitutes.
Mr. Hunier:: Will the minister explain the meaning of this section? It would appear to prohibit the movement of a manufactured substitute such as margarine from one province to another, if the minister chose to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: That provision is now in
the law, that we can prohibit the importation of substitutes for butter or the movement of substitutes from one province to another. That is necessary because of the fact that at the moment Quebec and Prince Edward Island prohibit the manufacture and sale of substitutes. This gives us authority to enforce the wishes of the various provinces in that regard.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am very sorry this
bill has been brought in. Representing an important rural dairy riding I came to the chamber in such a hurry that I forgot my glasses and have had to send for them. I presume a draft of this bill has been sent to the ministers of agriculture of the various provinces. Perhaps I should be abrupt and come right to the point. Is this going to facilitate in any shape or form the increased production of an imitation of a natural dairy product, such as margarine? In particular, will it in any way facilitate the importation of this product or any of its ingredients from other countries?


James Garfield Gardiner: The bill does not change
the position in any way in relation to the importation of substitutes. Margarine has never been mentioned as a product either in this bill or in the act. The term used is "substitutes for butter", and substitutes are in exactly the same position as before, in that they could not be imported into Canada. There is other legislation dealing with imports which makes more specific provision, but so far as this act is concerned there is no change in that regard. This act has to do with the decision made first by the Supreme Court of Canada and then by the privy council to the effect that this parliament has no authority to prohibit the manufacture and sale within the provinces of substitutes for butter. That is an authority which rests with the provinces. All we have done is to take out those parts on which we had no

authority in the first place; and if the provinces desire to pass them, they may do so. The province of Quebec has already done so, and so has Prince Edward Island. The other provinces can do the same thing if they so desire.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad to see that
others are coming to the defence of the dairy industry. Will this give the provinces the right, if they so desire or decide, to take the action the province of Quebec has already taken?


James Garfield Gardiner: The supreme court and the
privy council have decided they have that right. This measure does not say anything about it; but they have the right under the constitution.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Exactly what is this
measure for, if it is not going to protect the dairymen?


James Garfield Gardiner: It does protect the dairymen to the extent that it makes it possible to exclude the importation of these products.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am sorry to carry the
discussion further, but from what the minister has said, my understanding is that it does permit the exclusion of the importation of these so-called substitutes for natural butter; is that correct?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, the bill as it is drafted does that.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You say it does that?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


John William Gordon Hunter: Would the minister explain the constitutional aspect of trading between the provinces? If shipments of margarine can be prevented from, let us say, Ontario to British Columbia, there must be some trade barrier which can be created by regulation.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not a constitutional lawyer, but it is my understanding that that question was settled some years ago in connection with shipments of liquor from one province to another, and that there are certain set conditions under which it can or cannot be done. The same principle applies in this instance.


John William Gordon Hunter: May I suggest that the same principle would not be effective? Shipments of liquor from one province to another is prohibited by provincial law. In this instance we are endeavouring to state in a federal law what a province can do. While I am not prepared to say that I am a great constitutional lawyer, it does strike me that in this measure we are putting up barriers between provinces, and possibly doing so without proper jurisdiction.
Canada Dairy Products Act


James Garfield Gardiner: It would only be where a province has taken action that we would take action under this legislation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I understand that the proper law officers have approved this bill. However, for forty years the dairymen of Canada were protected, as I understood it, by legislation similar to this. Then, out of the blue, the privy council said that the dairymen should not be further protected. Has this legislation been referred to the supreme court for its decision?


James Garfield Gardiner: This legislation has been before the law officers, and has been drafted in the light of the decision made by the privy council. As I understand it, all the privy council said in connection with this matter was that we had no right to say that a substitute for butter could not be manufactured in a province and sold in a province. They have said we had no right to say it-and for exactly the same reasons as I gave a moment ago, that we have no right to interfere with the grading of butter in a creamery in Ontario. That is a matter for Ontario. It is only when there is shipment of a product from one province to another or from this country to another country that we have anything to do with it. That latter power is all left with us; this bill still provides for our doing what we did under that power before.


George Alexander Cruickshank: One more question; quite frankly I am very careful about any bill affecting the dairymen, after the deal they got in the last two or three years through a decision of some people over in England who knew nothing at all about farming in Canada. If any provincial department of agriculture tests this bill, will it be referred to the supreme court for decision?


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that if any provincial government desires to prevent the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine within its own province, it has the right to do so, in accordance with the decision of the privy council and also the decision of our own supreme court before the case was taken to the privy council. Any province that desires to stop it can stop it. As I said a moment ago, Quebec and Prince Edward Island have already done so. The other provinces may do so if they so desire.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I know this bill must have been designed to protect the dairymen, but I must say I am sceptical, because the dairymen got a dirty deal through the decision in England. This bill apparently has not been, submitted to the dairymen in the provinces, and certainly it has not been submitted
4684	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canada Dairy Products Act
to members of the House of Commons repre- The same procedure is open, so long as senting dairying constituencies. If the there is an appeal to the privy council; it department of agriculture in any province can be taken there by anyone who objects to takes exception to the legality of the bill, the legislation and thinks it is not intra vires, will it be submitted to the supreme court A province or, indeed, anyone else, can do for decision?	that. But there is no occasion to submit it


James Garfield Gardiner: That will be for them to say. un^ess someone raises the question.
They can submit it to the court in their own Mr. White (Hasiings-Peterborough): Is there province. I suppose from that point if an anything in section 6 or anywhere else in appeal were taken it would be taken to the the bill that gives the governor in council supreme court, and, if there still is an appeal authority to make regulations prohibiting or to the privy council, from the supreme court controlling the export of cheese made from to the privy council.	milk in the usual way?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I have not received the answer yet that I am looking for. The provinces had nothing at all to do with the margarine decision. There was a great lobby put on to permit the sale of margarine in Canada; therefore the matter of the legality of legislation which permitted the sale of this so-called substitute for butter was submitted to the supreme court for a decision.
I am assuming that this bill is entirely in the interests of the dairymen, but I do not know whether that is so or not-and neither do any other members, including even the legal minds in the house, and I am not one of them, because I come from a farming district. However, no legal mind in the house knows. I admit we have here some brilliant members of the bar; but if they can pick up this bill and, in two minutes, tell me whether it is legal or not, then they are better lawyers than I think they are-and they are all overpaid.
What I am asking is this: if a department of agriculture in a province takes exception to what is in the bill, can it go further? I would point out that it was not the provincial governments that submitted the bill that permitted the ruination of the dairy farmer through the sale of margarine. It was the federal government that submitted that measure to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision.
I would repeat my question: if a department of agriculture in a province takes exception to the legality of the bill, will it be submitted to the supreme court for decision?


James Garfield Gardiner: I should add that the final decision of the privy council was reached as a result of the fact that the farm organizations took it there. It was not the government that took it there, but rather the farm organizations, and the department of the Minister of Justice supported the farm organizations in their argument. I believe it was Mr. Milliken who represented the farm federation before the privy council in arguing the case.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. I cannot conceive of anything being in the act that does that, and I do not know of any reason why we should want to do it.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister not that power under section 5, subsection 1(b), which says that the governor in council may by regulation prohibit export out of Canada of a dairy product unless it complies with the prescribed standards?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is on the standards alone. For example, Britain says: We want white cheese only. They have said that over the years when they are buying. We have suggested that cheese should be made white if it is going to be exported to Britain. Last year, when we were requisitioning cheese, we insisted on the cheese being made white. There are conditions of grade or quality that apply when there is export of cheese or when it is moved from one province to another, but only then. We cannot prevent them from making it in any form whatsoever, or from grading it in any way whatsoever, so long as it is disposed of in the province.


John George Diefenbaker: But you can prevent them from exporting it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Administration.
Mr. Catherwood:: In the carrying out of this act, will any additional graders and inspectors be required?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I do not think so. Up to now I think we have had all that we have needed. We make use of the provincial inspectors; the provinces make use of our inspectors, and the two put together make enough staff at the moment. If there is more production, of course we would require more staff.


Mr. Tustin:: A while ago I understood the minister to say that all or practically all the grading was done by provincial inspectors. Is the standard set by the provincial inspectors accepted by the department and by the federal inspectors?

Criminal Code


Mr, Gardiner:: I think it works the other way round. If a province is not exporting or is not interested in exporting, it does as it likes. But if it is going to export from one province to another-using the word "export" in that sense-then it must meet the conditions that are required in the other province. Over the years our work has been to keep that standard the same in all the provinces. So far as I know, they are the same at present. I think the last province to come in was Ontario. They had their own system, their own methods and their own grades, because they sold practically all their dairy products in Ontario. Since I became minister they agreed to the standard that we set, and now I think that right across Canada it is pretty well agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


James Garfield Gardiner: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


George Alexander Cruickshank: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 25, consideration in committee of Bill No. 391, to amend the Criminal Code-Mr. Garson-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 21-Warrant to observe operation of telephone equipment.
John George Diefenbaker: The clause that I was dealing with last evening was the new section 629A which by warrant allows police officers to observe the operation of telephone equipment.


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might interrupt my hon. friend for a moment?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As is common knowledge, this section of the bill was submitted to us by the
government of the province of Ontario as something that in their opinion would facilitate the enforcement of the law particularly with regard to the situation in the city of Windsor. The clause was carefully drafted by counsel from the attorney general's department of Ontario, the Bell Telephone Company and the Department of Justice. We did not think it would result in any abuses if this power were entrusted to the provincial governments generally, and, in particular, to the government of Ontario, which is the only one that has so far asked for it or shown any interest whatever in it. It is apparent, however, from the course of the debate last night, and from rumours that we hear about the corridors, that there is a strong view in a certain part of the opposition, which is firmly opposed to this clause. Since some members of this group have been fairly closely identified with the government of Ontario and are in a better position than we are to form an opinion in these matters, we think we might well withdraw this clause from the present bill, and have another look at it; because if there is a strong segment of Ontario opinion represented in this house in opposition to it, it may well be that the powers covered by this clause should not be granted. We therefore would suggest that this clause be withdrawn. We can consider whether it will be reintroduced at some later time.


John George Diefenbaker: I am certainly pleased that the minister has withdrawn this clause. He says that he is going to look it over and to give it further consideration. I hope it is dropped, and dropped without resurrection; because in my opinion it is one of the most dangerous steps that can be imagined in the direction of invasion of the rights of the individual. I thank the minister for withdrawing it.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I also say that I am happy indeed that this section has been withdrawn? This was a dangerous provision. While it might not be abused, it might be looked upon as creating a precedent and driving in the thin end of the wedge. I understand that this provision was asked for by the government of Ontario, for certain specific reasons. The minister has said that no other government showed any interest in it. I do not know whether it was submitted to them, but I would have thought that if it were submitted to some of the governments in Canada, the probability is that they would have objected at least to the principle underlying this section.
I am not going to say more about it, except that so far as I am concerned, the minister will have our consent to withdrawal of the

Criminal Code
section. We are happy indeed to give that consent. After all, this bill is in some respects a drastic measure. There are some features of it I might have discussed earlier, but the various items have been passed and I do not propose to go back over anything that has already been dealt with. But I say again that the government is wise in asking the permission of the committee to withdraw this objectionable section.


Mr. Low:: I would also like to say that
this group is very happy that the section is being dropped. I had marked it especially for considerable opposition before I heard that it was possible the government might drop the section. It is a dangerous departure from the procedure which we have been following in the past in an attempt to get evidence upon which to base a conviction.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Then I understand that
clause 21 is dropped?


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Before it is finally dropped I want to add one word. If it had gone forward I was going to draw the attention of the minister to what he may have already seen. If not, I shall draw it to his attention. It is evidence given by Mr. Hoover before the subcommittee of the committee on appropriations, and this is the appropriations bill for 1942. He has remarks to make about the use of this kind of thing which, if an occasion should arise to consider it again, I suggest should be very carefully weighed by the department.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it will be necessary
to move that the clause be dropped.


Mr. Gregg:: I therefore move:
That Bill No. 391, an act to amend the Criminal Code, be amended by striking out clause 21 and renumbering the following clauses accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Sections 22 to 24 inclusive agreed to.
On section 25-Notice to be given.
John George Diefenbaker: There is one suggestion
I would like to make in connection with notice of appeal in general after conviction. It is a matter that sometimes arises where a conviction is followed by imprisonment in the penitentiary. The sentence does not commence to run until the accused actually is incarcerated in the penitentiary. The result is that numbers of accused who have been convicted sign waivers of their right of appeal; for, unless they do so, the first thirty days of their imprisonment will not count on their sentence. I suggest to the minister that injustice has followed the strictest application of that section dealing with waivers. Consideration should be given
[Mr. Coldwell.l
to allowing a convict to commence his sentence from the time he is sentenced rather than denying him that right and thereby constituting an inducement to him to sign a waiver of appeal. I know of a case, and I bring it to the attention of the minister, of a boy of eighteen or nineteen years of age who would have been acquitted on appeal, who signed his waiver in order that his time would count, and as a result there was more than a little difficulty in getting any action. I suggest that while it does not strictly come under this section, it is a matter to which consideration should be given.
I am very glad that provision is made for the right of an individual to secure an extension of time by the Supreme Court of Canada, following the expiration of the fifteen days. That is a salutary provision, and one that will assure the preservation of the just rights of an individual who, through inadvertence, fails to have his appeal launched to the supreme court within the period in question.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 26 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.
John George Diefenbaker: There are a couple of
questions to which the minister was to give answer: one, the number of cases in which an appellant had utilized the in forma pauperis provision of the law; two, the number of charges that were laid in the various provinces for drunken driving during the last year, the number of convictions, and also the number of charges for reckless driving and the corresponding statistics on convictions.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With regard to the first question my hon. friend raises, he will recall that he raised it on the amendment to the Supreme Court Act.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have already handed that information to him privately. If I recall it, there were two applications for in forma pauperis, one of which was granted but not proceeded with, and the other one was denied. A point arose in connection with one of these cases, which although it was not material to the judges' decision was used by them as a basis for the request which they made to us for this legislation.
With regard to the statistics that my hon. friend asked for, we have the record here, for the period from 1945 to 1949 in the various

provinces of charges of driving while intoxicated. There are no statistics available yet for the country as a whole for the year 1950. We have no statistics as to the charges for reckless driving. They are not available. I shall be glad to send the data across to my hon. friend.
Criminal Code Mr. Diefenbaker: It would be of interest if my hon. friend would put it on Hansard, because it is a record.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the committee is agreeable.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The table follows:
Driving While Intoxicated (C.C. Sect. 285 (4) )
Con-	Gaol	Reform-	Sentences suspendedYears	Charges	victions	Fine	Under one year	One year and over	atory	and other sentences
Prince Edward Island
1945	30	30	2	27	i1946	73	71	71	1947	50	50	50	1948	55	55	14	33	8194Q	55	55	12	43	
Nova Scotia
1945	104	88	88	1946	175	165	4	161	1947	215	198	5	193	1943	170	149	11	138	1949	229	191	i	190	
1946
1948
New Brunswick
144	142	1	141160	159	1	158159	155	17	137228	228	44	184302	297	115	182
Quebec
1945	116	106	45	60	i1946	112	101	38	63	1947	124	110	20	90	1948	139	120	51	69	1949	306	261	117	143	i
Ontario
1945	774	641	640	1	1946	1,234	1,057	15	1,039	1	1	11947	1,222	1,009	2	1,003	2	21948	1,263	1,070	14	1,044	121949	1,394	l|249	136	1,099	1	3	10
Manitoba
1945		87 122	83 122	2	80 122			1
1946								
1947	116	108	1	107	1948	124	121	3	117	i1949	176	173	35	137	i
Saskatchewan
1945	64	62	621946	95	89	1	881947	66	64	8	561948	72	61	4	571949	115	113	27	85
1

Criminal Code
Driving While Intoxicated (C.C. Sect. 285 (4) )
Years
Charges
Convictions
	Gaol			Sentences
			Reform-	suspended
Fine	Under	One year	atory	and otherone year	and over	sentences
Alberta
1945	89	85	3	82	1946	78	72	2	70	1947	G8	67	3	62 66	21948	72	69	3	1949	134	132	16	in	R	
British Columbia
1945	32	31	1	30	1946	58	56	54	2	1947	66	59	2	57	1948	122	107	5	102	1949	220	208	45	161	2
Yukon and Northwest Territories
1945	1	1	1	1	1946	6	6	6	1947	5	5	5	1948	5	5	5	1949	10	10	10	
Totals for Canada
1945	1,441	1,269	54	1,211	1	1946	2,113	1,898	61	1,832	1	31947	2,091	1,825	58	1,760	21948	2,250	1,985	149	1,815	1949	2,941	2,689	504	2,161	6	3
Reckless or Dangerous Driving (C.C. Sect. 285 (6) ) Totals for Canada
1945	1,536	1,356	1,227	84	3	11	311946	3,207	2,974	2,787	130	3	10	441947	2.436	2,066	1,817	200	8	10	311948	2,143	1,842	1,705	107	3	9	181949	2,018	1,754	1,602	111	6	8	27


Solon Earl Low: I was very much interested in the discussion yesterday with regard to clause
3.	I would ask if the committee would revert to clause 3 before passing the title of the bill. My reason is to consider an amendment to that clause.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I suggest to my hon. friend that he discuss on third reading the subject matter to which he is referring?


Solon Earl Low: It does not matter to me at which stage the amendment is moved, but I thought it would be better to move it in committee.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am afraid we cannot very well reopen the section.


Solon Earl Low: I am sure we could revert to clause 3 by unanimous consent.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Solon Earl Low: May I say that I have worked out an amendment to clause 3 that would
cover the situation as discussed here yesterday, reserving for the minister all he asked for, and covering all that the hon. member for Temiscouata, the hon. member for Kamloops and others had asked for. It does not matter to me whether we do it while we are in committee or as an amendment to the motion for third reading. I should think it would save time to do it now.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.
On section 3-Assisting enemy.


Solon Earl Low: If I have consent to revert to clause 3 I would move:
That paragraph (i) of section 3 be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"(i) assisting, while in or out of Canada, an enemy at war with Canada, or any armed forces against whom Canadian forces are engaged in military operations whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are, or any country against whose armed forces Canadian forces are engaged in military operations whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are, or"


The heading will have to be changed a little because this amendment was prepared to be moved on the motion for third reading.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, from a hasty reading of this proposed amendment I would suggest that it is identical in substance with one moved yesterday in the committee by the hon. member for Kamloops. In other words, it purports to cover first the enemy at war; second the armed forces against which Canadian armed forces are contending where no state of war exists; and also, third, the country of the armed forces against which our armed forces are contending where no state of war exists. That was the point which was made by my hon. friends of the official opposition and which was passed upon by the committee in a motion, as I recall it, moved by the hon. member for Kamloops and which was voted down.
While this amendment may not be identical in language, I think it is identical in substance, and for that reason I still think we would be inclined to adhere to the clause as it was originally drafted. I shall not traverse the ground that I covered yesterday, because there would be no purpose in my doing so; but we have given most careful consideration to all angles of this matter, and we think that the inclusion in this clause of the countries of the opposing armed forces in Korea would be tantamount, as far as this bill is concerned, to acknowledgment of a state of war with those countries; for while we would be saying that it was not war, we would be putting those countries in the identical position in this clause in which we would put them were we at war with them.
We gave careful consideration to all these aspects of the matter when we were drafting this clause, and we must adhere to the language in which it now appears. I am afraid we shall have to oppose my hon. friend's amendment.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that the clause as it stands is pretty wide; in fact I think it is wide enough to cover any situation that might arise. It seems to me that there have been cases in the past in which the forces of a country have assisted what we would consider to be a purely democratic undertaking within another country. This amendment might be interpreted subsequently in such a manner as to interfere with what were ordinarily considered to be civil rights and liberties.
Once this amendment is made to the Criminal Code it will be there for perhaps a long time. I think we should be careful not to put anything further along this line
Criminal Code
in the code, because we never know what may happen in this country in the future and who may be administering the code. I think the clause as it stands covers adequately the point that the government wishes to cover; indeed, even in this clause there are dangers should it be abused. Consequently I should be inclined to support the minister in letting it stand as it is. If I were going to amend it I would want more safeguards in order to make sure that the powers in the clause could not be abused, as I think they might be.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the amendment carry?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that when the time was reached to consider this the minister might accept this proposed amendment. In the first place, it meets the objection that was raised yesterday by one hon. member as to the wording; the words "military operations" are substituted. An important feature of the proposed amendment is that it makes it possible to deal with anybody who assists a country which is supplying troops who are fighting or who are engaged in military operations against our forces. The point made by the Minister of Justice is that we should not follow a course which amounts to an open declaration that we recognize an undeclared state of war created by the troops from that other country. I can only repeat what I have said before. We are not in any doubt that the forces now opposed to Canadian and other United Nations forces in Korea come from communist China. No one questions that. Not only do we know that from the identity of prisoners who have been taken; we know it from declarations by representatives of the communist government of China. I find it utterly inconsistent that in view of the tragedy that is taking place in Korea today we should be prepared to accept the illusion, created for their own satisfaction by the government of China, that these Chinese troops, veterans of the 8th route army, men trained by Russian communist instructors, are volunteers in the Korean forces. The thing is utterly unrealistic. The very best trained troops of the Chinese communist army have been thrown into action against the United Nations forces, which include young men from Canada.
I can only repeat what I have said before, that the time has come for us to say in no uncertain way that while we seek peace with China, we are not going to do anything to assist the Chinese nation under a communist government while that communist government is sending troops against our own young men. I hope this will be reconsidered.

Dominion Elections Act
Amendment (Mr. Low) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (for the Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if at this point we could revert, with unanimous consent, to the calling of the resolution with respect to the Dominion Elections Act I understand . that it is now proposed that the bill will be reprinted, and will include only those provisions dealing with municipal elections in the Mackenzie district and the provisions having to do with defence service voting. I gather that may be acceptable to members of the opposition. If it is, we could have the resolution called now, and advise the house of the consent of His Excellency the Administrator. Then the bill might be printed and would be available tomorrow for whatever disposition the house may make of it.


George Alexander Drew: Just so that I will understand the situation, in addition to the provision for the municipal election to which reference has already been made, I understand that all that will be included is what is now section 7 of the Dominion Elections Act. Is that correct?


Walter Edward Harris: Not quite. Section 7 is the section which deals generally with service voting, but there are a great many more sections in the bill which are required in order to carry out the purpose of that section with respect to service voting.


Mr. Speaker:: With unanimous consent of the house, it is agreed that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole, this day, on the said resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about His Excellency the Administrator?
Mr. Harris, Grey-Bruce (for Mr. Bradley) moved that the house go into committee this day to consider the following resolution now appearing as a notice of motion in the Votes and Proceedings of Monday, June 25, 1951:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Dominion Elections Act to implement the recommendations of the special committee appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, embodied

in the draft bill prepared by the said committee and inter alia to make provision for: (a) a greater number of advance polls; (b) the conduct of the Northwest Territories elections; and (c) the Canadian prisoners of war voting regulations, 1951.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was His Excellency the Administrator informed of the change?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: With unanimous consent of the house it is agreed that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on the said resolution.
Mr. Harris, Grey-Bruce (for Mr. Bradley) moved that the house go into committee to consider the resolution.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is understood that the bill when presented will contain references only to the voting in the Northwest Territories and the service voting.


John George Diefenbaker: Which are the sections?


Walter Edward Harris: I have sent my copy to the printer, but it relates only to those sections which establish the principle with respect to service voting, and then there are a number of ancillary provisions to carry that out. But there will be nothing in it that does not relate to those two subjects.


George Alexander Drew: The reason I asked the question I did is that I have had some discussion with the Prime Minister since the matter was first raised in the house today, and I understood that it simply referred to the provision for voting in the Northwest Territories and to section 7, with such additional provisions as would be necessary to carry them into effect. I have a copy of the act here, and I could send it to the minister.


Walter Edward Harris: Section 7 is the section dealing with service voting, and there are a great many which follow with respect to service voting to provide the means for taking the service vote. It is those additional sections, which I think my hon. friend would like to have in-


George Alexander Drew: Oh, yes.


Walter Edward Harris: -in order to carry out section 7. I think I could indicate the sections generally. It is section 6 actually of the present bill, and the first part of section 7.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by the first part of section 7?


Mr, Harris (Grey-Bruce):: The first subsection of section 7.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that this goes farther than it was suggested to me that it was intended to go on introducing this measure. Section 6 introduces certain new principles with respect to voting. Section 7, however, would take care of the problem that has already arisen with respect to service voting without changing any of the existing principles. I think that the minister should consider very carefully what sections are to be covered. It would be well if we knew exactly what is to be included before we are asked to vote even with respect to the principle of accepting the bill at this time. I have in front of me a memorandum of the conversation I had, and it was indicated that it was section 7 and those sections that would provide for the carrying of that section into effect.
Without my enlarging upon it at the moment, the minister is well aware that there is quite a difference between the effect of section 6 and the effect of section 7. Section 7 would meet certain difficulties that have arisen with reference to the taking of soldiers' votes. Section 6 introduces certain new principles that may easily involve considerable discussion, and that should receive very careful consideration.


Walter Edward Harris: I will consult with my hon. friend, and perhaps we can call it at one o'clock if we can come to an arrangement by that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Pardon?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Stand until one o'clock.


Walter Edward Harris: I move the
adjournment of the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: It is understood that the debate can proceed later this day?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



JUDGES ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Judges Act, 1946, to increase the salaries of judges, other than the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada; to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario and of the Superior Court of Quebec; and to provide certain adjustments as to pensions of judges and widows of judges.
Judges Act


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) raised a point of order when this resolution was first presented to the house. If the house does not wish any further debate on the point of order, I am prepared to make a ruling now.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked whether it was in order not to set forth the maximum expenditure in a resolution preceding a bill "for any public aid or charge upon the people". I Iiave examined section 54 of the British North America Act and standing order 60. Neither of these provisions requires in terms that the maximum expenditure be set out in the resolution. Further, the citations in Beauchesne's third edition do not support the proposition. On the contrary, citation 439 indicates that the maximum expenditure need not be so specified.
I also have consulted the joint law clerks whose duty it is to prepare resolutions of this kind. They have informed me that there have been many instances in the past in which the maximum expenditure was not stated in the resolution, and also that in their view it is not always possible to assess the maximum expenditure. In these circumstances I have no alternative but to rule the present resolution to be in order. At the same time, however, may I draw to the attention of hon. members the following extract from Bourinot's parliamentary practice, fourth edition, at pages 404 and 405:
The cardinal principle, which underlies all parliamentary rales and constitutional provisions with respect to money grants and public taxes is this- when burthens are to be imposed on the people, every opportunity must be given for free and frequent discussion, so that parliament may not, by sudden and hasty votes, incur any expenses, or be induced to approve of measures, which may entail heavy and lasting burthens upon the country.
This extract suggests to me that it would be desirable, wherever possible, to include in resolutions' of this kind an indication of the expenditure to be incurred, although, as I have said, there is no positive legal requirement that this be done.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the motion now before the house is in the usual form, asking the house to declare that it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Judges Act, 1946, and to increase the salaries of the judges other than the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. The resolution also seeks a declaration by the house that it is desirable to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Superior

Judges Act
Court of Quebec, and to provide certain adjustments as to the pensions of judges and widows of judges.
I doubt very much whether any substantial measure of disagreement would arise as to the part of the resolution relating to the increase in the number of judges, because that is a matter of agreement between the provincial and dominion governments. I am sure also that in so far as those provisions seem reasonable to hon. members it is not likely there will be substantial disagreement in regard to such adjustments as may be made in connection with the pensions of judges and widows of judges. But from remarks already made in the house it would seem there is likely to be some discussion, and perhaps some substantial measure of disagreement on the question whether at this time it is expedient to introduce a measure that will increase the salaries of judges.
I think I should indicate that I presented to the government reasons why I hoped it would defer consideration of this bill until we meet again in October. Those reasons were not related to the merits of the provisions that are to be placed before us in connection with salaries. I pointed out that there will be a recess in the courts for a considerable part of the time between now and October, and that in any event it would be unlikely that the date on which any changes might become effective would be affected by letting this bill stand until the fall. I did suggest that there were reasons at this time why we should avoid any discussion that might give the impression that any member of this house was directly or indirectly reflecting upon the judiciary of Canada.
At a time when our whole society is threatened as it is today, I think it is appropriate to remember and seek to impress upon the house that our society is founded upon respect for our judicial system. That calls for a generally accepted belief in the minds of our people that the judges and judicial officers are impartial, competent, and beyond improper influence of any kind. Canadians have reason to be proud of the great tradition established in this country by the judges who have held those offices, in the Supreme Court of Canada, the supreme courts of the provinces or the various local judicial districts under their differing names in the different provinces. I think we have reason to be proud of the fact that since we became a nation in 1867 this country has been remarkably free of even the slightest hint of any reflection upon the men holding those high offices. It should be a source of satisfaction to all who believe in our free society that the judges, many of whom in

their earlier years were active partisans iir the political affairs of this country, have without exception, or almost without exception, recognized the great obligation they owe to society itself in accepting office. The records of our courts have been a tribute to the extent to which men and women can actively participate in debates under our democratic system and at the same time recognize that such debates in no way lessen our common acceptance of the obligation we all owe to Canada as a nation and to the society which has made our country what it is.
In every province and every local judicial district the judges occupy positions of very great importance, which go far beyond their ordinary judicial responsibilities. To a very large extent rthey are called upon to symbolize the impartiality and dignity of the law. They are called upon to occupy many voluntary positions of great responsibility in our general affairs, where the impartiality of their office gives them special qualifications which mean a great deal in the functioning of a free society. For that reason it is essential that the salaries paid the judges should be in keeping with the high office they occupy. It is important that the salaries should be such as to attract the best brains of the legal profession, those best qualified to perform these very important tasks. I feel sure the members of this house generally will approach this question from that point of view.
On the other hand there is a consideration which I do not think we should ignore at this time. Inflation, the changing value of the dollar and other circumstances connected with the unsettled days through which we are passing all have their impact upon the daily lives of all Canadians. I think the question must be faced squarely. If this high court of parliament is going to say to the people of Canada generally that we hope nothing will be done during this period of uncertainty which will increase the inflationary pressures, we should be prepared to defer any action which, by example as much as by the amount actually involved, might tend to have that very effect. I would hope that by October we may see the general economic picture more clearly than we do today. I would hope that we may see much more clearly what the real prospects are of international stability. I, for one, would not like at this time to say anything which might be interpreted as indicating any lack of recognition of the great importance of the position of the judges in this country, nor would I like to be put in the position of appearing to oppose appropriate recognition, in financial terms, of the great responsibilities

our judges do assume. On the of her hand, once again I place before the government the desirability of letting this matter stand over for three months so that we may not open the door at this time to any discussion which conceivably might unsettle the minds of the public in relation to the judiciary, or might involve decisions and arguments related to the present atmosphere of uncertainty which we would hope might to some extent be resolved by next October when we meet again.


Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this resolution, which is set out in these words:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Judges Act, 1946, to increase the salaries of judges, other than the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada; to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario and of the Superior Court of Quebec; and to provide certain adjustments as to pensions of judges and widows of judges.
I do not think this is the opportune time for the government to bring in a resolution of this kind. I do not believe that any of the judges today are financially embarrassed, but we have old age pensioners who can barely obtain the necessities of life. In my view we should look after those old age pensioners before we increase the salaries of the judges.
I am not saying they do not need it, or that they are not entitled to it. I do say however that at this time we should look after the old age pensioners first. When I saw this resolution on the order paper about six weeks ago I wondered whether the government was sponsoring it, or whether it was the minister. We know the farmer wants more for his wheat, and I was wondering if the bar association wanted more for the judges. Perhaps the minister will answer that question when he speaks.
The government, led by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), which has been preaching economy, which has been laying off staff from the post office and from other branches of the public service for purposes of economy, now brings in a measure to increase judges' salaries. I cannot understand it.
What do we hear repeated from the government benches? More production for wages received. I know, from my study of conditions in Canada for a long time, that some judges have far too little to do, while others are working much too hard. The latter group just cannot cope with the work they have to do. No government in Canada has at any time since confederation made a survey of the judicial districts; yet every ten years each government has looked over the redistribution so that each member of
Judges Act
parliament will be representing so many people. This has never been done with respect to the judges. The arrangement made when the provinces were established is still the same, despite the fact that in many cases the population has shifted. In my own province I see places where the judges do not work half the week-and my good friend the minister, who comes from Manitoba, smiles. Well, I can prove it to him, because I have been long enough around the courts of Manitoba to know something about what the judges do.
I repeat that the judges in the cities are working hard, while those in the country should have their territories extended so that they would have more work to do. I realize that some of these judges are doing good work in the communities. They have spent their extra time for the welfare of those communities. On the other hand there is the other fellow who runs a lumber yard and does side jobs when he should be trying cases in court.
I appeal to the minister to lay this resolution over until the fall. Let each member go to his constituency and see what the judge in that constituency is doing. Let him see whether his judge is doing a full-time job and giving full production for the wages he receives.
In my view this measure needs careful study. This would be a good opportunity to revise the judicial districts. I do not want to work the judges too hard, but I want them to give value for the money they receive. We look after them well; they receive good pensions. I am not objecting to their getting more money, if they need it. By all means give it to them, if it is necessary and if they deserve it. But this matter requires further consideration.
As I said before, the districts should be changed so that some judges could take bigger districts. I do not wish to take up further time at this late hour of the session. I do urge, however, that it is far too late in the session to bring in a measure of this kind. When we are preaching economies is not the suitable time to ask for advances in salaries of any group. A granting of increases to judges at this time would destroy the plea the government is making, that of more production for wages received.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, we in this corner of the house are opposed to the measure at this time. We oppose it for more reasons than one. Our chief reason, however, is that the government is and has been pursuing a financial policy with which we do not agree-and there are no signs that they are going to change.

Judges Act
If the government pursued the policies we have been advocating for years, perhaps we would favour such a measure, because under those circumstances it would not result in the burden that it will be under present monetary policy. The present financial policy of the government means simply this, that you have to soak somebody to pay somebody else. When we look at this resolution, which proposes an increase in the pensions of judges whose pensions now amount to something in the vicinity of $8,000 a year, we believe that it is not the time to do it.
Let us look at the situation in the country. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) has mentioned the fact that we are preaching economy. That is what we are doing. Yet it is not only a matter of economy. It is a matter which involves the taxation of those who are less able to afford taxes in order to increase the pensions of those who need them less. Over and over again during this present session we have mentioned the necessity for some different financial policy in order to stop the rising cost of living. The rising cost of living hits everyone, especially the man who is on a low salary, the wage earner and the white-collar man.
The budget that we have just passed has increased the sales tax; and the sales tax affects the man in the low income brackets. Here we have two things: increases in the cost of living, and increased taxation for those who are already burdened. Then there is the increase in the income tax, or the surcharge. That is going to affect the taxpayer. Recently we passed the Old Age Assistance Act. That will once again increase the taxation of the people, because it is to be .partly a contributory scheme in the sense that an additional tax will be levied. That is the situation at the present time: increases in the cost of living, increases in taxation of this kind, that kind and the other kind. We have all that at the present time, and we are now proposing to increase the pensions of judges who now receive pensions of about $8,000 a year.
There is another reason why we believe we should not pursue this measure at this time. Much of the taxation that is now imposed upon the public is for defence purposes. The public may say: We will take it, but under protest, because the world is in a state which makes it necessary for us to build our defences. We must prepare for war. That is a phrase we do not like. We must rearm. That is a phrase we do not like. We therefore change it and we say "defence". The people may stand for some increases in taxation when it is proved to them that it is for defence purposes. But let us remember this. The same defence purposes will defend

the rights of the judges. The same things we fight for by reason of defence are the things that the judges hold dear as well as anyone else. At the present time, therefore, when defence needs are such a tremendous burden upon the people of Canada, the judges too should say: We shall be willing to forgo any increase in pension for a year or two until the storm abates. That is the situation.
There is another matter I should like to mention here, because when we begin to discuss increases in judges' pensions we think of our judicial system. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has emphasized the importance to us of our judicial system, and has pointed out that it must be protected. I agree with him there. But that does not mean that the system is necessarily perfect. Usually the cry arises: Hands off the judicial system; you must not criticize that. I am not going to criticize our judicial system, but I believe we have a right to criticize judges and the method of their appointment. I am afraid that we have come to the point where the main qualification for judges seems to be that they must have been defeated Liberal candidates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Ferguson:: That is not so.


Ernest George Hansell: If we go according to the practice, it would seem to be so.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: No, it would not. Go over the recent appointments to the bench. That is not so.


Mr. McGregor:: Are there any Conservatives?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am a strong Conservative, and I will tell you that Conservatives have been appointed to the bench in the last four years, I am glad to say, and they were strong Conservatives.


Ernest George Hansell: That does not destroy my argument.


Mr. Dickey:: It certainly does.


Ernest George Hansell: I am saying that at the present time our system of appointing judges is in danger of becoming a system of political appointments. I think it is time we changed that system. I think it is time we sought a new method for the appointment of judges. In the appointment of judges I believe that the one and the main consideration should be their qualifications as jurists.
There is another matter which I should like to mention. There is another class of

people who are much more in need of pensions than the judges are of increased pensions. The judges administer the law. I believe they should receive pensions as they do. They administer the law; they interpret the law. But there is no pension for those who make the law. If anyone rises in this house and suggests that some consideration should be given to those who make the law, it seems almost that it must be hush-hush- oh, no; we must not mention that. I have mentioned these things before, and I am not afraid to mention them again. I will stand on my own feet. I am not afraid of the criticism that may be levelled at me when I mention the matter again. I believe the time has come for consideration of adequate pensions for those who make the laws. I believe that some consideration is being given this very matter in some quarters. I understand, if old dame rumour can be trusted, that it is being considered on the basis of a contributory scheme. If that be so, I do not think that there should be any possible reason to shy away from criticism if such a scheme is introduced in the house.
I do say, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come-and I am quite certain that hon. members for the most part will agree with me, even though they do not wish to be too outspoken about it. That is their own business. I believe I have a fairly solid body of opinion behind me when I say it is high time that some consideration was given to pensions for the law makers, considering that the law interpreters and law administrators are given pensions of $8,000 a year without a contributory scheme.


Mr. Stick:: Without a means test.


Ernest George Hansell: And without a means test.
There is another little matter in respect to the judges' pensions, and I am not against increasing pensions on a matter of principle, particularly when they deserve it and particularly when they need it. But we must remember this, too; by the time judges retire they are comparatively aged men. I do not think that aged people require the same income as younger people who are starting out in life and want to make something of life. For the most part, those who go on pensions have lived their lives. They should then be able to rest and enjoy life in comfort. I am asking myself the question: Can an aged person enjoy life in comfort on $8,000 a year? I think he can. If the people of Canada were not tremendously burdened by the increased cost of livi.-g and increased taxation, then I would say: Why should not judges be able to enjoy life to the extent of a few thousand dollars more than $8,000? I would be willing 80709-298
Judges Act
to say that. But I do not think we are justified in passing this measure at this time. I have put forth the reasons for saying that. We wish our judges no harm. We believe in their integrity, and we believe that perhaps they are deserving, but I do not think that this measure should be passed by this house at the present time.


Mr. J. S. Sinnolt (Springfield):: It is not
very often that I agree with the opposition, but I agree wholeheartedly with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), and with almost all that was said by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell). My first objection to this measure is that it is an inflationary trend, and look at who is starting it-of all people, the Minister of Justice himself!
I would say at the outset that this is not the time for a full-dress debate on this subject. It is not the time to increase any salaries. The judges have got along very well up to this time, even though we have had a high cost of living. We are now in the position where we have just about reached the peak and prices will be coming down.
I am going to say just a few words more, and then I will take my seat, but I want to tell the Minister of Justice that I will fight this bill with all my heart and with all my strength as long as I can. It has been intimated to me that I have a personal grudge against judges. Such is not the case. My opinion is this. At this time, with costs of everything at their height, if we give the judges an increase of twenty per cent across the board, labourers throughout the country would be entitled to just as much; and if that is not an inflationary trend and an inflationary start, then I do not know what I am talking about.


Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: have made a calculation about the total cost of legislation and of justice in the main estimates. In rough figures, legislation amounts to $4,600,000, justice, $13,813,000. Adding these amounts together with the supplementary estimates, you get roughly $18,500,000. The total amount of expenditure in the estimates is $3,586,915,000. To realize what is the proportion of the cost of legislation and justice, we have to divide $3,587 million into $18 million. What is it, sir? The calculation is obvious. The percentage is -5 or one-half of one per cent.
Naturally we proceed by comparison, but we must not forget the sense of proportion which is very useful in circumstances like these. It is only -5 or a half of one per cent. That is the total amount that is spent for legislation, House of Commons and Senate
4696	HOUSE OF
Dominion Elections Act expenditures, travelling expenses of the members, the senators, the judges; and the whole Department of Justice, salaries paid to the judges and the ministers, personnel, travelling expenses, everybody.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Fournier (Hull) the debate was adjourned.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps we could take up the problem of the elections act.


George Alexander Drew: Assuming that that is acceptable in so far as the consideration of the subject is concerned, I would refer back to what I said earlier when it was proposed that we deal with the elections act as a whole. I indicated then that I thought we should not proceed to deal with proposals which would change substantially the election laws or the general provisions of the elections act. I feel sure that there will be no objection to my mentioning the fact that the Prime Minister then spoke to me and indicated that the government was ready to introduce a bill in more limited form, avoiding any provision that would change the name of the act and including only those clauses which would make it possible to carry on the municipal elections in the Northwest Territories and carry forward the provisions of section 7.
Later when the matter was discussed it was indicated that there might be a number of sections, including 6 and 7 and those from 29 on, as well as certain intervening sections, which it was proposed to introduce. Those sections which are referred to do introduce new principles; they do introduce changes of substantial importance; they do introduce subjects which were under vigorous discussion in the committee. This would only partly meet the objections to which I referred earlier, and I could not agree to the reopening of this subject for the purpose of introducing a bill unless it is to be limited to the provisions for the municipal elections, which, as I indicated before, we are ready to consider, and section 7, so far as that is required for the purpose of avoiding certain difficulties that have arisen. That is what I understood was to be brought forward.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, as I think I indicated earlier, that is the general desire. I admit that section 6 was overlooked at the time, and, while it may introduce new principles, they are not essential to the service vote regulations. If section 6 is left out for the moment, it occurs to me that all the other sections, that is section 29, etc., are sections which carry out section 7. Unless I am wrong in that, I would think that if it is intended to carry out section 7 in any form, we should pass section 29 and the following sections. If that is not the understanding of the opposition, we might just as well leave them all out and confine ourselves to the provision dealing with the Mackenzie district elections.


George Alexander Drew: I think that is the answer,
unless there is some special reason for including section 7 (1). I understand that there are reasons why it was thought that section 7 (1) should be included. I am not suggesting that there was any thought of misleading me in the matter, and I think the minister understands that; but the information I was given was that the only addition to the provisions relating to the municipal elections would be section 7 (1). I am not prepared to agree to any extension beyond that, except in so far as there may be a provision that could be agreed upon it might be advisable to add for the purpose of carrying out section 7. But as I understand it, section 7 (1) can stand by itself.


Alphonse Fournier: The government
would have no objection to following the suggestion of the leader of the opposition and taking the section dealing with the municipal elections in the Northwest Territories. When we get to section 7 of the bill, if it is found that it can be passed, we could probably carry it, but the bill would be limited to those sections.


George Alexander Drew: The understanding, then, is
that the bill to be introduced, if we agree to this procedure, will not include any provision to change the name of the act, but will include only the provision with regard to the municipal elections, and, if the government deems it advisable, section 7 or such part of it as is regarded as being sufficient.


Alphonse Fournier: That is understood.


Mr. Speaker:: When the house rose at one o'clock it was considering the resolution with respect to the Judges Act. I understand that it is now agreed that that debate will be interrupted and that the house will proceed with the resolution respecting the

Dominion Elections Act. When that has been concluded the house will revert to a discussion of the resolution respecting the Judges Act, and the hon. member for Temis-couata will then have the floor. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AMENDMENTS WITH RESPECT TO NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris, Grey-Bruce (for Mr. Bradley) that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It Is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Dominion Elections Act to implement the recommendations of the special committee appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, embodied in the draft bill prepared by the said committee and inter alia to make provision for (a) a greater number of advance polls; (b) the conduct of the Northwest Territories elections; and (c) the Canadian prisoners of war voting regulations, 1951.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Bradley thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 404, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Garson that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Judges Act, 1946, to increase the salaries of judges, other than the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada; to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario and of the Superior Court of Quebec; and to provide certain adjustments as to pensions of judges and widows of judges.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, as appears from the estimates, the total amount spent for justice and legislation is approximately $18,500,000, which represents a half of one per cent of the total expenditure in the main estimates. I thank my colleagues for having helped me to And that proportion, and that calculation has helped them to realize that what is spent for justice and legislation is not as high an amount as is represented in some places. To realize what is the expenditure for judges we have to look again at the estimates, and at page 26 we see that the total amount spent for the administration of justice 80709-2981
Judges Act
is $4,739,000, or approximately a quarter of $18,500,000, or a quarter of one-half of one per cent. I admit that although the fraction is small, the amount may be large, but we shall keep our sense of proportion when we discuss these matters.
Everybody appreciates the work of the judges, but apparently in a different manner, as appears from the various expressions of opinion in the house. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke well. He spoke of the importance of the judiciary in our national life, and so did other members. I am quite free to give my opinion about judges, because 1 was connected with them during my active practice of fifteen years. I am quite independent now and can say what I think of them, because my parliamentary duties have been so heavy that I have not been able to practise for fifteen years. I have come to the conclusion that the best judges are those who decide according to equity, but in saying that I am a legal nonconformist.
The purpose of this legislation is not to change the state of things, inasmuch as it works just as well now as it has in the past, and as the question is threefold we must examine each matter in turn. The first question involved is the increase of the salaries of judges. I shall come to that again in the latter part of my remarks, which will be very brief. Then there is the increase in the number of judges in the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Superior Court of Quebec. So far as the province of Quebec is concerned, I know that there is an arrangement between the government of Canada and the provincial government to increase the number of judges so that the requirements of justice will be better served. Many cases are under way but cannot be heard because there are not enough judges. As there has been an agreement between the governments about the matter, I cannot see why there should be any objection to it. I presume the situation is the same with respect to the province of Ontario.
The resolution also provides for certain adjustments in the pensions of judges and widows of judges. My hon. friends know the law. According to the act as amended, judges make an option concerning their pension when they are appointed, and they inform the Department of Justice, which in turn informs the treasury board, if they intend to have the full pension paid to them or one-half paid to their wives. That arrangement is made at the time of the appointment of the judge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The fraction is two-thirds and one-third.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, the fraction. All judges make that choice, and they inform the department about it. If the wife, who is supposed

Judges Act
to have one part of the pension, predeceases her husband, then according to the law the husband may receive only his own fraction; and it is probably to correct that abnormal situation that the minister intends to amend the legislation. Is that it?
Then the minister will have the opportunity to tell the committee of the numerous representations that have been made by the provincial attorneys general and legal organizations such as the Canadian Bar Association and others to expedite as much as possible the administration of justice because of the fact that many cases have not yet been heard though they have been on the roll for years.
The last question is the increase in the salaries of judges. Something struck me in the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). It was this, and I took some notes: "The judges occupy positions of great importance which go far beyond their judicial responsibility. For that reason it is essential that the salaries paid to judges should be in keeping with the high office they occupy. It is important that those salaries should attract the best brains of the legal profession." This was the argument he made to support the resolution. On the other hand he made a reservation, and I quote from my notes:	"We are living in a period when
inflation, the changing value of the dollar and other circumstances connected with the unsettled days through which we are passing all have their impact upon the daily lives of all Canadians. If nothing would be done during this period of uncertanty to increase the inflationary pressure, we should be prepared to defer any action which by example as much as by the amount actually involved might tend to have that very effect." But there was a word of optimism at the end of his remarks when he said, "I would hope that by October we may see the general economic picture more clearly than we do today." No finer compliment has been paid the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) than the suggestion that after the budget has been in force for some months we may see the general economic picture more clearly than we do today.
I remember that in my family Sir John Macdonald was called "Old Tomorrow" because he was postponing all problems to the day after. My genial friend the leader of the opposition should not follow the footsteps of Sir John Macdonald. He is a man of action, and should decide today what is going to be done. What would be the difference if we waited until the fall? We will have a big session then, with all sorts of problems, and we have the opportunity to make a decision now.
CMr. Pouliot.]


Mr. Murphy:: Yesterday was not bad,
was it?


Jean-François Pouliot: It was a different matter. It was not a matter for the judiciary; it was a matter for joy. The judges could not join, because they have not the right to vote.


Angus MacInnis: The supreme judges of the country did it, though.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. They are those who have the right to vote, but those we are speaking of now are disfranchised for federal elections. I will not insist any more. I appeal to the common sense and experience of all hon. members to realize that the judges are not so many; that they have many obligations to meet, and that as the leader of the opposition and other hon. members have said it is important to have good men. There are some old judges who are ready to resign if conditions are made easier for them. Then we will have new blood on the bench and in some cases it will serve the country very well. I will not insist any more about it; I leave it to the house.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wish to add just a word on the merits, and will confine myself mainly, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has said, to suggesting once more that it would be very desirable not to have to consider this matter now. I will say only one word about the importance of the judiciary. Many sanctions that used to be valid seem to be disappearing; many landmarks seem to be vanishing. As time has gone on, the importance of the judiciary has continued to grow. Notwithstanding that we may not always agree with their conclusions, notwithstanding that not all the judges may be of the type we would like, nevertheless I think we are fortunate in our judiciary, and I would be sorry to have anything happen which would be in the nature of criticism, or to have to cast a vote in this house at the moment.
I should add that at the present time I think it is difficult to deal with this matter with the detachment we would like. As has been pointed out, we are in a time of high prices. There are other things affecting the public mind; and taking one consideration with another I think it will be hard to have this question considered in just the way we would like. So I draw to the attention of the minister the fact that it would be so easy to leave this matter over; and I will try to suggest a reason for doing so. I point out that leaving it over would cause little inconvenience, first by reason of the fact that we are to have a session in October; and second, by reason of the fact that the long vacation

intervenes almost at once so the new judges would not be long delayed past appointment for the autumn sittings if they were appointed in October.
Now I suggest that there is a reason, not merely a desire, for delay. The reason is that at the moment we are all living in hopes that the Korean situation may develop favourably, that we may have a cessation of hostilities there. If that should happen it would greatly lighten the pressure. I am giving that as a reason which happens to exist at the moment, but my chief reason is that no harm can be suffered in the short time intervening. For that reason and for others I might go on and outline, I still hope the minister may see fit to allow this matter to stand over.


Mr. G. S. While (Haslings-Pelerborough):: I wish to make only a very brief observation at this stage of the proceedings. If the minister proceeds with the bill I hope to make some extended remarks on second reading. I have listened with interest to the observations of certain hon. members as to why there should not be an increase in these salaries. I do not mind stating frankly to the minister that I do not agree with them. I intend to support the principle of the resolution. First, I should like to have the bill, and see the various provisions. It must be clear to the minister from the remarks made so far that there is going to be certain opposition. It does seem unfortunate that this important bill should come before the house, and be pushed through in the last few days.
The members who preceded me followed up other suggestions, and gave reasons why the bill could stand over until fall. I should like to suggest two other reasons to the minister. First, if the bill stands over until fall whatever change is made in the rate of salary could easily be made retroactive to whatever date the minister has in mind now. Second, according to press reports the increase is to be twenty per cent across the board. I would point out to the minister that, at least in my opinion, when this act was amended in 1946 the then minister of justice made a mistake in that he did not provide an adequate increase. I hope the minister is not going to make the same mistake now. I would suggest to him that the bill be given first reading, and then the matter be allowed to stand. In the meantime, he will have ample opportunity to further examine the matter, and to satisfy himself that twenty per cent across the board is proper. In my opinion twenty per cent is not sufficient so far as the county court judges are concerned. That is all I wish to say now, but I hope the minister will consider the various suggestions
Judges Act
that have been made, and see his way clear to allowing the bill to stand over until the fall session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in common with other hon. members who have spoken, I recognize the importance to this nation of our judiciary. I recognize also the importance of our judges being free from economic worries so that they can do their best work in the administration of justice. I should like to make the point that there are many other people in the country who should likewise have more freedom from economic worries than is now the case. On that basis I contend that, in the matter of pensions, we should keep a sense of perspective.
The other day I argued, along with others, that we should remove the means test from the blind pension. It was pointed out that that would cost about $3 million, and that seemed to be one of the stumbling blocks. The member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) today pointed out to us that approximately $18-5 million is being spent on legislation and on the administration of justice, and he emphasized that that amounts to only one-half of one per cent of our national budget. I should like to point out that the $3 million that it would cost to remove the means test from the blind pension would be only eight one-hundredths of one per cent of our national budget.
With respect to pensions, we should bear in mind that the government is asking the older people of this country to accept an old age pension of only $40 per month. On the other hand, I ask hon. members to realize that our retired judges are receiving pensions on which it seems to me it is possible to live in a reasonable measure of comfort. As I look into the details that are provided in the book of estimates for the current year, I find that the pensions paid to judges, judges' wives and judges' widows, are listed in full on pages 207 to 210. I have not taken the time to make an exact count, but by looking over the list as carefully as I could in a few minutes, it seemed to me that about half or perhaps a little more than half of those listed in the estimates are receiving pensions of $5,000 a year or more. I want to make it clear that I arrive at that figure by grouping together a man and his wife wherever the two of them are living. There are quite a few cases where the retired judge is in receipt of a pension of $3,333 a year and his wife receives a pension of $1,667, which together make a pension of $5,000. I include all such couples in my statement that half or slightly more than half of those on judges' pensions are receiving $5,000 per year or more. There are a number who are

Judges Act
receiving $8,000 per year, and of course there is one at the top figure of $15,000 per year, and none of these judges made any contribution toward these pensions.
We do not know what the precise proposal of the minister is, in view of the fact that his resolution did not so indicate. The minister was supported technically by His Honour the Speaker this morning in the ruling he gave that he was not required by law to put that amount in the resolution. His Honour also said he thought it would be a good idea, whenever it was possible, to do that. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a case where it certainly was possible to put it in the resolution. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) smiling and shaking his head. I remind him that this whole business of whether or not to include in the resolution preceding a money bill the maximum amount to be involved, first started back in 1949 when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) brought in a resolution preceding a bill to amend the Old Age Pensions Act. He failed, on that occasion, to indicate the amount in the resolution, and he got into a bit of trouble in the committee because of it. The same Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he introduced the resolution preceding the amendment to the Old Age Assistance Act last week, put in the resolution the important figure of $40 per month. I feel that the Minister of Justice could have done that in this resolution. For my part I would say that what His Honour said about doing it where it is possible applies to this resolution.
At any rate, the newspapers have carried reports that the increase is to be in the order of twenty per cent. At a time when we are passing legislation to provide pensions of $40 per month for our senior citizens across the country, it seems to me the government is getting a bit out of focus when it asks us to agree to a twenty per cent increase in pensions of $5,000 per year or more. That means that what was a $5,000 pension will become $6,000. It means an $8,000 pension becomes $9,600 per year. We have not the bill before us, so we do not know whether these changes will be retroactive and will apply to judges, judges' wives and judges' widows now on pension or whether they will apply only to those who go on pension after the bill passes. Whichever is the case, the fact of the matter is that we are being asked to legislate for pensions which seem to me to go considerably beyond the demands of a comfortable retirement, particularly in comparison with what we are asking some of our other people to accept.

I recognize the need for increasing the number of judges in the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Superior Court of Quebec. But it seems to me that the pension provisions of this legislation are such that this house should turn them down. I agree with those who have pleaded with the minister to let this matter stand over until the fall. Perhaps the best way we could persuade the minister to do that would be to defeat the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair, and that would give the minister a chance to redraft the measure to meet the necessity for an increased number of judges without asking for pension increases for those who do not need them.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words that I want to say. I am opposed to that part of the resolution that proposes to increase the salaries and the pensions because I think that at this time they may well be considered to be substantial. I remember one of the ministers, on a former occasion, stating that it was necessary to maintain these salaries at a level that would permit our judges to live in a state of dignity. At that time I thought it was perhaps unfortunate that word was used, because I do not think that you can buy dignity. I do not think that dignity can be bought with money.
As a matter of fact, there are many people today who are living in a high degree of dignity on far less than the salaries that are paid to the judges. Then again, our judges do not need to worry about their old age. They receive a fairly substantial pension. There are, of course, some people who are receiving a fairly high salary who are not able to live in dignity because perhaps they over-indulge. If you increase the salaries of those people, the result certainly will not be that they will live in a greater degree of dignity. The result would be just the opposite. I recall a phrase that is popular in the English language, namely, "as drunk as a lord." What I mean is this. If you increase the salaries of people who are already indulging, it is not going to help the situation. I am not suggesting that is the case in this instance; but I point out that it is the wrong word to use. We should not use the word "dignity" in a case of this kind because dignity cannot be purchased with money.
The other point is that it would not be wise to increase the salaries of any group of individuals at a time when the government is trying to keep the cost of living down. As a result of the increase in defence preparations, we are all having to bear a part of that burden. If any one group of people in this

country are going to try to evade their fair share of the burden, it means that the burden of the rest of the people is increased to a corresponding degree. Of all the people in this country today, I think the one body of men who should not be guilty of that offence would be the judiciary. After all, you cannot expect the people of this country to respect any body of men who are not prepared to absorb their fair share of the burden of defence. Yet when any group of people at this time asks for or receives an increase in their salaries, they are trying to evade their responsibility, and to that extent they lose the respect of the people. We cannot afford to have our judiciary losing the respect of the people of Canada.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker,
I approach this matter from the standpoint of a member coming from a distant part of our country. I find that a county court judge in Cariboo receives $6,666.66 per year. That is a substantial salary. But we must remember that he must pay in the neighbourhood of $1,100-I have not the exact figures-in income tax. As a result, his salary is reduced considerably. Let us say that it has been reduced until it is about $5,000. In 1871 the judge in Cariboo was getting $2,400, at a time when the cost of living was, of course, much lower than it is today and when we had none of the taxes which we have today. In that case I submit there is a good example of a man whose salary might be reviewed by this house.
The work of a judge in that part of the country would, of course, be quite different from the work of a judge in Ontario, in a settled part of the country. One of the judges I have in mind in my part of the country is continually travelling from one end of that large area to the other. He takes his car. He gets mileage on his car, of course; but he does not travel over the beautifully paved roads that exist in Ontario. He must travel over some extremely rough roads, and go into mountainous country and into difficult places. He gets the munificent sum of eleven cents a mile for the use of his car. I greatly doubt if that amount will see him through, having regard to the broken axles and other difficulties that he will encounter in the course of his labour.
He may go by plane to certain other places where he holds court. Hence you will see His Honour travelling by aeroplane; you will see him boarding the plane at two or three o'clock in the morning and travelling over the summit of the Rocky mountains which divide my county to the other point where court is to be held. He of course gets an allowance when he stays at hotels in these
Judges Act
various places. But after all, the life of that judge is not a pleasant one, in the sense of enjoying the ease, comfort and luxury suggested by the various speakers here. The same thing goes for the supreme court judges of British Columbia who must travel long distances, more often on the wing than not. They usually travel by plane from here to there.
Far be it from me, a layman, to come to the aid of the judiciary of our country in the presence of so many distinguished members of the bar. But I am a Canadian who would like to see the highest standard of excellence in connection with the bench; and I am Scotch enough and practical enough to want to pay a man at least enough to enable him to live in the same sort of dignified position in the community, let us say, as a member of the legislature or a member of the House of Commons.
Somebody said that judges were recruited from the list of defeated Liberal candidates.
I think that was the most unkind thing that has been said here all day. Again I speak only from my experience in British Columbia where we have some distinguished judges.
I think of the former judge in my own riding, namely, Hon. Fred Calder of Ashcroft, B.C., who did his duty there over a long period of years. He was a native of Nova Scotia, a man of great distinction and education, and he travelled by horseback, stage coach and so on, in the rain, in the sleet and in the snow, in good weather and bad, over all those years. He was a man who had never aspired to public office and who had taken no part in public affairs.
I think of ex-judge P. E. Wilson, K.C., of Prince George who in his day was an ornament to the county bench of British Columbia. I believe his court was established at Fernie or at Nelson; but he resigned his position in order to make enough money to educate his family. Now in his old age he is practising at Prince George. An extremely able counsel and a highly respected man is ex-judge Wilson. As a result of having resigned from the judiciary and getting himself a reasonably good income he was able to educate his family. Today a son of his, Mr. Justice Jack Wilson, is one of the outstanding supreme court judges of British Columbia and is, I am sure, a man whose ideals are much above the cash register and immediate emoluments. The younger Wilson has already distinguished himself in the public service not only in British Columbia but throughout Canada. He has presided at certain tribunals settling labour difficulties from coast to coast..

Judges Act
The present chief justice of British Columbia, the Hon. Wendell B. Farris, is a very distinguished native son of New Brunswick and a man of the highest character. He was not taken from the lists of the defeated candidates. An hon. member who says that goes out of his way to be offensive. Mr. Justice Macfarlane of British Columbia, Mr. Justice James Coady and His Honour H. J. Sullivan of New Westminster are men of the highest character. We have had outstanding men in British Columbia who had political experience. In what forum could they gain better experience than in the House of Commons? The name of the late Chief Justice Aulay Morrison, who represented New Westminster here in 1896, is "writ large" in the judicial history of British Columbia.
I am not going to speak at greater length, but I do suggest that if in 1871 a county court judge in Cariboo was worth $2,400 a year, when there was no income tax and when the cost of living was very low, and gold was worth less than $16 an ounce, before the general trend of rises in costs, expenses and so forth, it could certainly be established that a judge acting there in 1951 should be worth many many times $2,400 a year. Therefore as a layman I again say that I think it is the most outstanding thing in our system in Canada that a man without money or without position can come into our courts and find justice. If we are to maintain that sort of thing, then the honourable judges in Canada have to be placed at least on the same income status as the leaders in the commerce and business of our country, on a high level where they may fill a dignified position in their communities and be, as we would like them to be, among the leaders of culture and education in the life of Canada.


Angus MacInnis: We have been debating this question for over two hours, I believe, and we are more or less debating it in the dark, as it were, because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has not done the house the courtesy of informing it what is involved in this resolution. Therefore, we must go on drawing our own deductions as to what may or may not be in it.
There are several parts in the resolution. Perhaps there would be no objection to some of them. The resolution provides for additional judges. I do not suppose there would be any objection in the house to making provision for additional judges, if the judges are needed-and as far as I am concerned I would take the word of the Minister of Justice for that.
There is a provision for an increase in the salaries of judges other than the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. There may be 
a case for increasing the salaries of judges other than judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, not because their salaries are not now high enough in relation to the salaries of other people in Canada, but because their salaries are being compared with the salaries of the judges of the supreme court who have had one or two increases during the last five or six years. For that reason I do not know whether I would be greatly concerned about a reasonable increase in salary, but then again there is the question of pensions. When I see a measure brought before this house asking for an increase in pensions for people who are already receiving pensions out of all proportion to those provided for the rest of the citizens of Canada I just cannot agree with it.
The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) referred to the salary of the county court judge in that area. If I heard him correctly, he said it was $6,666.66. That is the salary, but there is a pension for this judge, and for all other judges in that range of salary, of $4,444.44. After ten years on the bench-I believe that is the case-he can retire and draw this pension. Not only can he draw this pension but he can return to his law practice. Mind you, this pension is also non-contributory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And no means test.


Angus MacInnis: I appreciate the high position of judges in this country. I understand the high position they hold. I will accept the account of the hardships they go through in the discharge of their duties as recounted by the hon. member for Cariboo. But, sir, is that any different from what the ordinary John Doe in this country goes through? Reference is made to their travelling on planes, but what about the pilots, the stewardesses and the other people who are operating the plane? Surely their lives are just as important as the lives of the judges, and they are jeopardized every day when they take a plane into the air. I can take up the position of men and women in this country when I think of these things.
I have heard it said in this house that we should make financial provision for our judges in order that they may be free from temptation in the discharge of their duties. The moment we make that assertion we are by implication saying that the reason people get into trouble is that proper financial provision is not made for them. I do not think it is anything to anybody's credit when he avoids temptation just because good financial provision is made for him. What about the poor fellow who is brought before the judge? Ninety-nine times out of a hundred these people get into difficulties because of their

poor economic circumstances. In that regard I would like to read a short news item that came to my attention the other day which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of May 15, 1951. The headline of the article is: "Youths sing for police. Not dismayed by arrest." Then it gives the story of ten boys in their teens, ranging from 11 to 15 years of age, who were arrested by the police and arraigned in the social welfare court on charges of theft and receiving. The story goes on-told by one of the police officers who arrested the boys. He said this:
"We have to bring these boys before the courts, but I feel sorry for them," reported Detective Sergeant Thuot.
"They all come from poor families, each one with at least ten children. Most of their homes haven't got even the necessities of soap. These lads plainly suffer from poor environment."
I submit that before we begin increasing the salaries and pensions of those who can live sumptuously upon the salaries and pensions they are receiving, we should go about removing the conditions that bring young boys and young girls into court-conditions which start them on the road of crime from which there is no return. Those are the things to which we should be paying attention, but those are the things to which we are not paying attention.
When I compare the pensions paid to widows and wives of judges with the pensions that we placed upon our statute books only last week, where a man and wife are compelled to live on $480 a year provided they have no other income, not $5,000 a year, not $6,000 a year, not $15,000 a year, I realize that something must be done. The judges of our courts are conversant with these conditions because when they are not dealing with disputes between capitalist organizations this is the kind of thing which takes up their court time. They come in contact with men and women who never had a proper start in life because of the economic environment in which they were born and in which they are compelled to live.
I could say a good deal more, but I shall wait until the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) shows the house the courtesy of explaining the purposes of this resolution so that we may know what is involved. There is just one other thing though I would like to mention. I do not want to cast reflections upon judges because in so far as I have had the opportunity to meet them, and I am glad to say it has always been outside the courtroom, I have found them to be fine gentlemen. Observing them in the courtroom or the other places in which they have to discharge their duties, I think 80709-299
Judges Act
they have discharged those duties with credit to themselves and with benefit to the country. So I am not objecting to the resolution on that score.
I do object on the score that there should be this wide disparity in the incomes of people in a democratic country. It makes for conditions which, if not corrected in the ordinary process of parliamentary action- that is by bringing about a better distribution of income-will be corrected in other and less desirable ways. It has been mentioned that our judges are by and large political appointees. Surely no member of this house will say that that is not the case. I could take you to British Columbia and name for you one judge after another who was appointed because he had been defeated in an election. I do not say that a defeat in an election has anything in it that affects the character of a judge, but on the other hand I do not see anything in it that makes a person more fit to discharge the duties of a judge. I have mentioned a number of such cases in this house on other occasions.
I have another clipping from the Montreal Gazette. This is a newspaper which I do not think can be accused of being radical. It approves the increase in the salaries mentioned in this resolution on the ground of the increase in the cost of living. It mentions the chief justices in the provinces receive $13,300 which, as the former hon. member for Calgary West would say, is not hay. The judges of the superior court in the province of Quebec receive $12,000 each. Again that is not hay, but it looks pretty much like clover to most people. The editorial then goes on to say:
The proposed increases in the salaries of judges should have another important advantage. They will give the people of Canada a greater right to demand that judicial appointments be made among those notable for their judicial qualifications. Too often in the past appointments have been made mainly as a reward for political services-and they have often been made at a time when the value of these services has begun to wane.
The use of the bench as a place of political retirement should be ended.
Not only is it a political retirement; it is a place of political refuge and I agree that it should be ended. I suppose that as long as we have a system of competition where there is competition even among politicians and lawyers, there will be this never-ending struggle for existence and these cushy jobs will be given to those who have made a sacrifice by taking on impossible constituencies or by having served the party in some other acceptable way. I do not suppose we will get away from that, but we certainly should get away from putting certain men and

Judges Act
women on pedestals as it were and giving them positions of comfort and security to which not one one-hundredth of one per cent of our population can aspire. As I indicated, that is all I am going to say now, but when we know what we are really talking about I may have something further to say.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: 
Hector Dupuis: Mr. Speaker. I do not propose to go as far as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). I would not say, however, that on the whole, I disagreed with the substance of his speech even if I did not fully approve of the words he used.
On the other hand, I feel that when a representative of a wage-earning group is called upon to vote an increase in salary to certain men in the professions, he should explain his stand. He is duty bound to do so.
I have never taken part in any class war. I have never objected to an adequate salary for any citizen according to his position, and I do not propose to do so today.
In 1932, I approved the increase in the salary of recorders in the city of Montreal. I remember that the salary of the chief recorder was then raised from $7,000 to $9,000 a year. That was during the depression. But my duty was clear-cut and I did not hesitate for one moment, even in the provincial legislature. When the committee on private bills examined the bill relating to the city of Montreal, I endorsed the measure, although I represented the labouring class, the low wage earners.

Mr. Speaker, as stated by several of the previous speakers, one must take into account the standard of living that a judge must maintain, no matter in what court he sits. I agree with the hon. member who said that our judges should be paid enough to achieve complete security when they reach middle age or even old age. I know that a large number of very eminent and competent lawyers would never accept a judgeship since they earn far more through their private law practice. Therefore, in order to have good judges-and I am speaking now with full knowledge of my responsibilities, on behalf of my constituents who are intelligent enough to understand-we must give them a salary which is sufficiently high to attract to the bench good lawyers who thus will be assured of security.
Still I feel it to be my duty to speak of other people who are in receipt of government pensions and of the way in which they are treated. I have nothing to say against the present government. They have done more than any other government in the field of social security. Still, I have been told that there is no limit to good deeds and that though we may keep on doing them for as long as we wish, there always remains something to be done.
Well, Mr. Mayor ... I beg your pardon; I am so used to speaking at the city hall that I used the expression Mr. Mayor. Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a class of people -I have always spoken in their defence- who should have received special consideration from our leaders, it is that of the white-collar workers.
Some people, who are always in favour of salary increases in the other spheres of the administration, never consider the salaries of certain department heads or certain leaders-I am not referring to any member of the house-and when we state the views and requests of this class of small salary earners, they become so very careful. It is only with the greatest caution that, when forced to do so, they grant a slight salary increase.
While I congratulate the government for what they have done up to now, I hope they will deal further with this class of white-collar workers.
As other hon. members have said, we recently allowed a certain increase in the old age pensions. It is all to the good. But here again we must consider-and I believe it is my duty to call the attention of govern-80709-2991
Judges Act
ment to this matter-whether it would not be fitting to improve further the condition of our older people.
We are not unaware that, although judges' widows are also assured of a pension-which some may find inadequate, while I personally find it inopportune-they are nevertheless secure from want and care.
On the other hand, without leaning towards exaggerated socialism I wonder if the widow of the worker is assured of sufficient income when her husband dies rather young, as often happens.
These measures deserve to be considered by the government. As I said, I want it to be well understood that I am wholly and entirely in favour of these measures. However, I would ask the government to think particularly of the group I mentioned a while ago and to consider increasing the pensions of those who served the state so well, each in his own field, as for example the veterans who served their country to the point of risking their lives on the battlefields.
I believe those people are also entitled to security, since they have risked their lives or, at least, offered their services for the defence of society.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion may I say that I shall vote for the resolution. However, I beg the government to give special consideration to the rights of that class of people who most certainly deserve that we look after them.
(Text):


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I wish to say just a word on this resolution; I will not be very long. I thought it ill fitting for the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) to refer to the speeches made in this house on this subject in the way he did. Certainly no one who has been speaking against this measure has referred to judges as political deadbeats, nor have they treated this in a flippant manner, as the hon. member suggested. I believe hon. members are treating this subject very seriously, and not flippantly at all.
A great deal has been said about the responsibilities that attach to the position of a judge. No one would underestimate those responsibilities. I believe our judges have a great responsibility, and I think they are carrying it out to the best of their ability. But surely no one would suggest for a moment that the degree of responsibility exercised by a judge depends on the remuneration he receives. That in itself would


Mr. Byrne:: Who are they?


Charles Edward Johnston: Members of parliament, if you want me to say so. I have no hesitancy in saying it. Even in that, I think there should be some degree of responsibility in allotting the amounts as compared to what other people receive. Anyone who says that those who speak in opposition to this motion are classing judges as political deadbeats, or are discussing this matter in a flippant manner, is not taking the subject very seriously and is not stating the facts.
I believe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) should tell this house he is prepared to limit these increases to the district court judges, who are in lower brackets. I believe he could find a reasonable and plausible excuse for increasing those salaries, tout I doubt if he could convince the house at this time that those receiving $12,000 and $13,000 need an increase in their salary or their pension. I understand the pension is based upon the salary which they receive. I wish the minister would tell us exactly why he proposes to increase all these judges' salaries at this time. Personally, I cannot see any need for it. I think it is a wrong principle. I have no objection to those in the lower brackets getting an increase, but I have every objection to those in higher brackets receiving one.


Mr. J. W. Noseworfhy (York South):: I am
opposed to this resolution, Mr. Speaker, but not because I do not believe judges should be well paid for the work that they do. I presume if we are to get the best legal minds available for these responsible positions we must, of necessity, pay these men something commensurate with the salaries which they forgo upon assuming such office. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) has not shown us the necessity for these increases in salaries or pensions. I believe he should have done that in the first instance. At any rate, I doubt if he could make out as good a case for these judges as many members made out last week for an increase in the veterans pension, which increase the government

turned down. Last week at least one supporter of the government looked forward with considerable confidence to a later session when possibly the cost of living would be stabilized, and the question of veterans pensions could be reopened. I suggest that if we can allow veterans pensions to wait until we see if the cost of living can be stabilized we can, in all conscience, do the same thing with regard to judges' salaries and increased pensions.
There are in this country a great many veterans who, by reason of the sacrifices which they made for this country, are left to rely entirely on those pensions; who have no means of earning anything other than that which they receive from their pensions. The government apparently agrees that at this time this country cannot afford to increase those basic pensions, nor can we afford to remove the means test from pensions for the blind. We must still limit the amount that blind people over 21 years of age are entitled to earn in order to receive the $40 per month. We can still not afford to pay anything to blind people from 16 to 21, during the years when these younger people need training and education. In the light of those circumstances I suggest it would not be in the interests of the judges themselves, it would not be in the interests of the high esteem in which their office is held that, within two or three days after we have refused to increase the basic pension for veterans and after we have refused to remove the means test from blind pensioners, we now undertake to increase the salaries and pensions of a group that is among the highest paid of those within the government service. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this motion be left for consideration at a later time. If it is brought on now, I shall oppose it.


Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: I wish to say a word on this resolution. I believe the judges in our country have a very important duty to perform, and a great responsibility. So far as salaries are concerned, some hon. members have stated that the judges are well paid. I do not think the increase on a percentage basis is fair to our county court judges. In many respects our county court judges have a more difficult task to perform than the high court judges. I am thinking of the fact that they have to travel through the rural districts in all kinds of weather, and very often they cannot get the accommodation at the smaller hotels which they ought to have. I would be in favour of increasing the county court judges' salaries, but I do not believe in giving a straight percentage increase.
Judges Act
Three or four years ago the judges were given quite an increase in salary. Probably they are entitled to something now, but if the government wants to give them an increase it should be a straight $2,000 per year or more, whatever the government thinks is fair. If the increase is twenty per cent, the county court judge gets an increase of perhaps $1,200, whereas the high court judge gets an increase of $2,500 per year. To me that does not seem fair. So far as pensions are concerned, I believe they should be on a contributory basis like other pensions. I believe the minister should reconsider this matter. He has plenty of time to do it before he brings in the bill. It is not necessary to force this thing through the house in a hurry. I think the minister should give it quite a lot of consideration before he brings in an increase on a percentage basis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, just before this motion is put I would ask, on a question of privilege, to be allowed to indicate the reason I propose not to oppose this motion at this time. It has been indicated that there will be further discussion when the bill is before us. My earlier remarks were directed to the hope that the government still might decide not to proceed with this measure. In view of the fact that the resolution covers a number of subjects, some of which affect provincial authorities who have indicated their desires, I thought that I would wish to defer any objection to this procedure, or otherwise, until the bill is before us. But in saying that, I would once again ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and the government to recognize where this debate is likely to lead us, and to consider the wisdom of deferring further action on this bill at this time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I had at first thought that I might discuss this matter to better advantage for all concerned after the text of the bill was before the members so that reference might be made to the various clauses of the bill as they related to my remarks. But I must say that I was rather impressed by the objections raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) that on this resolution it is but fair that some general outline of the contents of the bill should be given in advance in order to inform hon. members whether they should vote for or against the resolution. For that

Judges Act
reason I should like to make a few remarks of that general nature and, if I can, dispel some of the wrong ideas that are entertained concerning the measure by opposition speakers.
Reference has been made to the increase in judges' pensions which are supposed to be authorized in this bill. The bill provides or will provide-if indeed it is proper for me to refer to it at all in this debate-for an increase of 20 per cent across the board for judges in the county courts and in the supreme courts of the various provinces, and in the Exchequer Court of Canada; but not in the Supreme Court of Canada because of the fact that last year an increase was granted to the judges of that court.
As I am sure hon. members are aware, the judge's pension is not established as any fixed amount. It is two-thirds of his salary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Of his salary at retirement.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Of his salary at retirement, yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So the increase in his salary affects the pension.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The increase in the salary will affect the pension of all those who go on retirement after the time that this bill goes through. But there will be no increase in judges' pensions as such; that is to say, there will be no increase in judges' pensions which are now being paid to those who were retired before this bill comes into effect. In that sense, therefore, there is no increase at all in judges' pensions, except in the future; and then not in the pensions as such but in the pensions arising out of the increase in the salary.
In addition to this salary increase there are three other provisions. I am referring now to these pension arrangements and salary arrangements. The first is one which I think no member of this house will oppose in spite of the views he may have voiced in the debate this afternoon. It is to authorize the grant of an annuity to widows of judges who died before August 15, 1944, being the date of the coming into force of the (provision enabling judges to elect to divide their annuities between themselves and their wives. For some time after judges' pensions were granted, they were made payable only to the judge himself and expired with the judge's life, leaving his widow with no interest in the annuity which had been payable as a pension to her deceased husband for his life. It was represented that in many cases-and these are some of the distressing cases with which we are now confronted- that arrangement left the widow of the judge in penury because, in spite of the fact that the salaries which the judges receive may 
seem large to those who earn less, it is a fact that quite a large percentage of the widows in whose favour no division of the judge's pension had been made before August 15, 1944-because no such division could be made-are now in extremely necessitous circumstances.
When the question arose as to what provision could be made to deal with the problem which had become apparent from the concrete examples of these destitute judges' widows, it was suggested to the judges that each judge would be permitted to elect, when he received his pension, whether or not he would retain the whole of it payable to himself, for his life, to expire on his death, or whether on the other hand he would agree to have his judge's pension divided up into three parts, turning over one part to his wife and retaining the other two-thirds to himself. If a judge who had made such an election predeceased his wife, she would continue to draw her one-third share of his pension for her lifetime, and in that way would be provided for. But if the wife predeceased the judge, he would draw not his whole pension but only the two-thirds of it which he had reserved for himself by his election.
As I say, this arrangement went into effect on August 15, 1944. Before that date no such privilege of election was available to the judges, and there are now over one hundred judges' widows in different parts of Canada, some of whom we know, from representations that have been -made to us, are in distressed financial circumstances. With regard to that group it is proposed that we shall be enabled to pay to the widow an annuity not exceeding two-ninths of the salary provided by the act for a county court judge-in other words, two-ninths of the-smallest judicial salary-that was paid at the date of the deceased judge's death. That comes to quite a modest sum, but it can be paid only provided that she can establish that she is in necessitous circumstances and has not remarried.
The second authorization is that to pay annuities to widows, in substantially the same circumstances, of judges who retired on pension before August 15, 1944, and who have since died. That is, they retired before the time at which they could make that election and have since died, leaving widows in necessitous circumstances. In other words, these widows fall in the same category as the first group and are included in the estimate of 100 or more to which I referred a moment ago.
Then, the third provision is to authorize a judge who retired on pension before August

15, 1944, and who is living today, to elect to divide his pension between himself and his wife. There is just the one pension. When he divides it, it means that his widow, in the event of his death, will continue to get one-third. But if she predeceases him he will draw only his two-thirds. Therefore the cost to the treasury of providing for this election is not great. It is a matter of disposing of the pension in a way that will take care of both of them during their joint lifetime and of the survivor during the survivor's lifetime.
So far as salaries or pensions are concerned, all that the bill contains is a 20 per cent increase in salary across the board, but no increase in judges' pensions as such, and then this other provision of pension for widows, and the provision authorizing the judge who retired before August 15, 1944, to make the election where he had not previously made it.
There will be no dissent in this house from the sentiments which were voiced by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) when he opened the debate on this resolution today to the general effect that a strong and independent judiciary is the very keystone of our constitutional system. When we talk about our various freedoms, our civil liberties, our freedom of the press, our freedom of speech, our political freedom and all of these other attributes which we democrats are privileged to enjoy as very few people in mankind's history have been, we must realize, if we reflect upon the matter, that under our constitutional system these freedoms are guaranteed to us by the independence of the judiciary. Without it they would be unenforceable.
The first thing that any dictator does when he wishes to destroy these liberties is to gain control over and make the judiciary subservient to the executive. Democracy as we know it, the rule of law as we know it, can be traced back to the time when our British ancestors were able to establish the principle that the king was "under God and the Law"-the law as interpreted by judges independent of the executive. Therefore when we make a judicial appointment we take upon ourselves a very great responsibility, a responsibility that I may say, speaking for myself, and I am sure that is true of all my predecessors in the office which I hold, I have at all times felt very keenly.
We are rather inclined to take the bench for granted, because we have an able bench. We have never needed to worry about their independence; we have never needed to worry about the manner in which they
Judges Act
carried out the duties of their office, as to how they have protected our liberties. We take the judges for granted in the same way that we take liberty for granted; but I can assure you that if the conditions in that respect had been different from what they have been, we should then be, I think, perhaps a little more appreciative of the all-important function which the judges perform in our society.
The other night I took home the file of a poor chap who was sentenced to death for a capital crime to consider there his application for commutation to life imprisonment. When I took this file and read through the evidence in order to form judgment as to whether a commutation should be granted, which for that poor man meant the difference between life and death, when I read the role which the judge played in those proceedings and stopped to think that this was a man whose appointment I had recommended about a year ago, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter of great satisfaction to anyone in these circumstances if he can see, as I was able to see on that occasion, that the judge had a full grasp of the whole course of the trial, that he was able to render a proper disposition of the points of law which arose, that he had grasped the salient facts, leaving one who read that transcript with the feeling that here was a case where the life of a man was at stake and where it was in just, honourable and competent hands.
It is our duty in the Department of Justice -one of the most important duties that we have there-to try to get men who have the ability, the integrity and all the other necessary qualities to judge a case of that sort where a man's life may be at stake, or where a man's reputation may be at stake, or his honour, or the interests of a community, to say nothing of large sums of money from time to time. In seeking, as we have sought, able men-and I wish to repudiate the unworthy suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), I think it was, to the effect that we appoint no one to the bench but defeated candidates-I would have been prepared to say perhaps the day before yesterday that we would have great difficulty in finding defeated candidates to put on the bench-I do not think that the record of this or any other Liberal government if examined will support the hon. member's imputation. Not only are those who have been defeated in political contests a very small percentage of the appointments to the bench, but-and I will not name them- some very eminent Conservative lawyers have been appointed to the bench, which they now adorn, as the hon. member for

Judges Act
Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) was fair enough to admit when he spoke this afternoon.
No person who approaches this responsibility which I have in the Department of Justice with any proper consideration of his duties can afford to ignore this realistic fact, that one problem is that in a time like the present it is not hard at all to get very competent counsel to accept a position upon the bench at much less indeed than what they are then earning. But the figure has to be somewhere within striking distance of their income as lawyers. This is not because these men are mercenary or grasping, for many of them make substantial financial sacrifices in order to take on the honourable duties of a judge which they would not make if they had that attitude.
As we all know, these men after a long period of good income earned by very hard work have been accustomed with their families to a certain level of expenditures. I do not mean that that is because they are purse proud at all, but, as we all do, they develop a certain way of life. There is not one of us in this House of Commons who does not acquire in the course of his life certain commitments arising out of his home, children in school, friends and the like. Each of us can modify our plans and expenditures within certain limits, but if the Department of Justice is going to get the best men for the bench, as I think we should, we have to have those limits within reach of the best counsel. As one who has a fair measure of responsibility in this matter, I say to hon. members of this house, and I think those who are fair will be inclined to agree, that there would be nothing worse for the administration of justice than a strong bar and a weak bench.
What are the facts in this connection? Since 1920 up to date, over 30 years, the judges of this country have had one increase in salary. If the increases proposed by this bill go into effect they will have received in relation to what they were earning in the year 1920 an increase of 60 per cent. That is not 60 per cent compounded; that is 60 per cent on the 1920 figure. If we assume that the salaries which they were then receiving were not excessive, if we assume that they were fair-and I think I am safe in saying that they certainly were not higher and were indeed lower than most comparable salaries paid in other countries of the British commonwealth and the United States that derive their parliamentary and legal systems from the same sources we do; they were much lower than the salaries there-we must remember that the solitary increase which the judges have already got 
plus what we are proposing here, represents an increase of only 60 per cent on top of those salaries.
Let me read to the house figures which indicate the increases that have occurred in the incomes of other economic groups in this country during the same period of time. I have before me a table prepared by the dominion bureau of statistics dealing with the wage rates in this country and covering a period from 1921 up to the present. The year 1939 is taken as the base year with the figure 100. On that basis the 1921 index is 97-5 and the preliminary index for 1951 is 225-5. In other words there is an increase in that period, not of 60 per cent as there will be for the judges if this bill goes into force, but of 125 per cent.
I also have before me a table showing the details of farm cash income from 1926 to 1950, the base being 100 in the year 1926. This table shows that in 1950 the farm cash income had risen to 235-5.


Victor Quelch: What about farm costs?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is cash income, after taking care of costs.* This table does not include any supplementary payments which may have been made under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We do not need to stop with that group. The same thing can be demonstrated in connection with the income of other classes or groups in the country. These are facts which are well known to all of us. These figures merely indicate what has been taking place all around us in these various economic groups during that period.
For example, the salaries of public servants have risen from time to time through the efforts of their associations. Because of their associations one would naturally expect these increases to be more rapid than those of the judges who have no organization. The judges because of their position cannot conduct collective bargaining as they have no organization for that purpose. They remained from 1920 until 1946 without any adjustment in their salaries at all. That is not in keeping with what should be our concept of their position. It is true they have had security, they have had pensions and they have had a dignified position, but they have had no increase in that time.
I am not referring to their dignified position in the sense in which the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) did; I refer to the dignity that arises from the high and honourable office which they hold. But it is a position which they cannot demean by a display of miserliness when for example the collector
* (See also -page 4757.)

for the community chest comes around or in relation to other claims of that sort. There is the matter of maintaining a status which I think the hon. member for Acadia will agree is not a matter of being dignified by mere money in the sense in which he was using that term.
Then I come to the average weekly earnings in nine leading non-agricultural industries including forestry, mining, manufacturing, construction, transportation, public utility operation, trade, finance and services. The year 1939 is the base year and the preliminary figure for April 1951 is 206 -6. It may be more interesting to note that this table shows that the index of earnings in this important category in 1946 stood at 138 -6. There has been an increase from 1946 to the present time, five years, to 206-6.
I could go on indefinitely making comparisons of this sort and indicate that the judges, because of the positions that they occupy and their inability to raise the question of salary upon their own behalf, have not been in a favourable position to get adjustments from time to time. They have had only one increase since 1920 and if they get the present one will be receiving a 60 per cent increase as compared with increases of nearly twice that amount received by all these other economic groups. I know that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) can cite these distressing cases which appear before judges, and there is not a member of the house who will not agree with him in the sympathy that he feels towards those who are unfortunate. But when the bargaining representatives of a union-and I have dealt with quite a number of them on occasions when I was at the head of the public utilities of Manitoba-come to discuss what is fair compensation for the work they are doing for society, it is not that they feel callous towards the oppressed but they do not raise the question of the oppressed in discussing what would be a fair wage for the work they are doing for the employer for whom they are working. With great respect, I do not think they should do that, because what we should do in relation to the oppressed is to help them and lift them up; but we cannot administer our society, we cannot run our industry, without negotiating with the employees to pay them a fair wage for the work they are doing.
So far as a group is concerned who have no bargaining powers in that sense, it should be our responsibility to see that they do not have to come to us, that we will be fair because they cannot come to us, and we should see that they are taken care of in the same way as these other groups. This has
Judges Act
been realized by a number of different groups who are interested in these matters. I think reference was made to the fact that the bar association would naturally want to support an increase in judges' salaries. That is a very natural assumption, and it is the case. But we have not had the representations confined to that group by any means. A statement of the problem with which we are concerned here, and which I think is perhaps the most cogent we received from any source, was sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on October 4, 1949, going on to two years ago, by Mr. Percy Bengough, C.B.E., president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. This is what he said:
The executive council of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, at a meeting in Calgary following the convention, considered the question of judges' salaries. We fully realize that this is a matter somewhat outside the jurisdiction of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. However, we are of the opinion that those directly concerned are in a more or less difficult position to advance their claims.
That is precisely the position. They are in a difficult position, and because they are in a difficult position they went from 1920 to 1946 without any adjustment at all. Show me any other group in Canada of whom that can be said.


Angus MacInnis: Would the minister allow a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: The minister mentioned that the judges went from 1920 to 1946 without any adjustment. Did they take the downward adjustment that most people in Canada had to take during the thirties?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, they did not. Just as any other economic group which was in a position protected by a wage agreement or by a tariff they did not take it, and in no different way.


Mr. Abboti:: They took a 10 per cent cut.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) says that they took the 10 per cent cut which was imposed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It was imposed as a special income tax and it amounted to a 10 per cent cut in their salaries, $900.


Alphonse Fournier: Just as members of parliament had.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver East, who asked me that question, will agree that there were large numbers of the trade unions, the railway brotherhoods, for example, who, if my memory serves me correctly, took no more than a 10 per cent cut throughout the depression. I am not suggesting that they should have taken any

Judges Act
more, but 1 do not want my hon. friend, by asking me that question, to seek to draw some invidious distinctions which do not exist.


Angus MacInnis: The distinctions are there.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The letter continues:
Under the circumstances I trust that you will accept this presentation of our views in the friendly spirit in which it is sent, and1 of course in the hopes that you will extend our request your favourable consideration. It was the opinion-
Listen to this.
-of our executive council-
It had been meeting in Calgary.
-that I might personally interview you on this question but I have been detained by official duties in the west, and I now understand that notice has been given of an amendment of the salaries of the judges for the Supreme Court of Canada. As it is possible that this matter may be settled prior to my return to Ottawa, I am taking the liberty of writing you on this question. Of course we have no objections to the increase of salaries to the supreme court judges. However, we do feel that the salaries of the judges of the provincial supreme courts should also be dealt with at this session and at the same time as provision is being made for the salaries of the Supreme Court of Canada judges.
We are of the opinion that the salaries paid the supreme court judges of the provinces-
I am very proud that the statement I made a little while ago as to the qualifications we should seek in a man who is going to go on the bench is concurred in by the president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, because this is what he goes on to say:
-should be adequate in order to obtain the best men available and sufficient to maintain them in a free and1 independent position, without having regard to the personal fortunes of a man so appointed.
In other words, we should not confine our appointments to the bench to those who have supplementary private incomes to enable them to occupy the position not with ostentation but with what everybody expects in a position of that sort, if it is in no other sense than a subscription, as I said before, to the community chest and other such funds. The letter continues:
We question if it is in the best interests of the people of Canada generally if only lawyers having the necessary private means to implement their salaries are available for appointments.
This is a statement which I think has peculiar force in that it comes from the head of an organization which, be it said in fairness to it, has looked after the interests of its own workers and has seen to it from time to time, by collective bargaining agreements and the like, that they got the adjustments to which the unions thought they were entitled; and this is a plea on behalf of a group who have had no person to represent them in that way.

I think that is all I should like to say at the moment except that before I sit down I should perhaps make a reference or two to the points raised by previous speakers in the debate. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), a fellow Manitoban, says that some judges are too busy and others are too idle. As is so often the case, I agree with the hon. member. He is quite right when he says that. But, Mr. Speaker, under the division of authority under the British North America Act the appointment of judges to the provincial courts is the prerogative of the federal government. After they are appointed everything they do is under the direction of the attorney general of the province, who has exclusive authority over the administration of justice and everything pertaining to it. I do not say this in any way to shuffle off responsibility upon the provincial attorneys general. On occasion I have been acting attorney general myself for fairly long periods of time, and I know what is the difficulty in this connection. It is a fairly simple matter. There is a certain distribution of population in the year 1900, we will say; there are certain centres of importance, and judges are stationed there. There is a redistribution of the population of the province, and in relation to other centres the population in the original centres becomes less. But the judges still stay there, and the provincial administration will simply get hades from the people of those areas if they seek to move resident judges from their midst. The result is that admittedly there is some maldistribution of the work of the judiciary, especially in county courts.
I was rather interested this afternoon to hear some hon. members arguing that the county court judges were entitled to more consideration than the supreme court judges. Many of the representations made to me privately by those whose acquaintance with judges seems to have been confined to the county court judge in their own community, with whom I suspect they have been doing too much fishing, have been along this line: Why should we increase the salaries of those . judges when this judge I know never has very much to do, as far as I can see? At the same time the county court judges in the larger centres of Manitoba, as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce) was fair enough to state, and this is at least equally true of Ontario and British Columbia, are worked right off their feet with the volume of business they have to do. We cannot do a thing about that in the federal field, unless we might be able to make some arrangements with the provinces to set up a royal commission to investigate this maldistribution of judicial business from one end of the country

to the other, but in order to do that we would require the concurrence of all the provinces.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: On the strength of what the minister has just said, does he think it fair to give the higher court judges double the increase the county court judges are getting?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I would not think it would be fair, and they are not getting double the increase.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Practically.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, they are not. To begin with there was a certain salary for the county court judges and a certain salary for the supreme court judges. Exactly the same percentage increase was applied in 1946 and is proposed to be applied in 1951 to both salaries, but because one is higher than the other naturally it produces a larger amount.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Approximately twice as
much.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But in that connection, in order to keep the record completely straight I think it should be pointed out that in Ontario, and this is true also in my own province and I believe in other provinces, the county court judges derive revenues from certain provincial functions which they perform and which as far as I know have no exact counterpart in the case of the supreme court judges.
I have spoken somewhat longer than I intended, Mr. Speaker, but I have done so in the hope that at long last we might render simple justice to the judges of Canada.


Clarence Gillis: I had not intended to say anything on this matter, but I think this afternoon the minister provoked many people into seeing this question a little differently. He laboured very hard, but certainly he did not convince me. I do not think he did himself justice this afternoon when he attempted to lead the house to believe that an increase in the salaries of the judges would not mean an increase in their pensions, because that automatically follows.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of privilege I should like to make a correction. I thought I was most explicit, and if not I think I should be now, in saying that the increase in these salaries certainly would increase the pensions of any judges retiring after the amendment came into effect, but that it would not affect the pensions of those judges who have already retired.


Clarence Gillis: That is a little clearer now, but certainly the minister did not leave that impression with me previously. A judge now receiving $12,000 and retiring before this
Judges Act
amendment went through would receive a pension of $8,000. Once this amendment goes through his salary is increased to $14,400 and his pension automatically steps up to $9,600, so they very definitely work together. There is an automatic increase in the pension.
I consider it very bad timing to bring in this measure at this late stage of the session. Earlier, government members voted against having anything to do with an adjustment at this time in the basic pension of war veterans. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has been urging us to make people realize that they must work harder and longer in order to offset or relieve this inflationary spiral by more production. The group of people to whom we are giving this increase at this time cannot offset that increase by higher production. It is simply extra money that goes into the stream of purchasing power, and from the standpoint of inflation alone it is bad business.
Then there is something I would like the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to note. The income offered doctors in the armed services today is such, in comparison with what they could earn in private practice, that we cannot get medical men to go into the army, navy or air force. At the present time, according to press dispatches, we are trying to import doctors from Britain or other countries who might be interested in going into our armed services. We are embarking upon a long range program of defence, and if there is a financial adjustment to be made with respect to any group I think it should be the responsibility of the cabinet to take a look at that angle, because medical men are a must in the services and the financial return today is not sufficient to attract them.
I do not think anyone in the group we are talking about is suffering financially. I believe they are well off in comparison with most of the people in the country, particularly in times such as we are going through today. I believe we should be very careful to make adjustments where they ought to be made. The minister might have taken time off and made a complete analysis of the lower courts, the magistrates' courts, where 90 per cent of the people see justice meted out. Not many of them get upstairs to that $12,000 man.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: They are provincial appointments, as my hon. friend knows. They are not federal appointments.


Clarence Gillis: I understand; but that is where justice is meted out to the great majority of our citizens, and reforms are necessary there.

Judges Act
If the municipalities and provincial governments have not got the finances or the personnel to make adjustments in these courts, then I think it should be the obligation of the Department of Justice at Ottawa to assist in that field. I do not want to hold the matter up, Mr. Speaker, but I believe the minister's comparison on a percentage basis of the increase in wage rates and civil servants' salaries to the judges' salaries was a poor one. Wage rates in this country in 1939 were very low. You could get a 225 per cent increase on nothing, and a million people in this country did, and still not have a large income. A 60 per cent increase on a salary of $6,000, which was stationary all during that period, runs into a lot of money. I thought it was not a good comparison. I agree with the members who said this matter should be left until further consideration can be given to it, and some of the other adjustments necessary should be made before we start talking about a proposition of this kind.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the resolution carry? Mr. Knowles: On division.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Garson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 405, to amend the Judges Act, 1946.


George Alexander Drew: I know it is not customary to
say anything on the first reading-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I might point out
that a motion for first reading is not debatable. However-


George Alexander Drew: I was only going to repeat my suggestion for the consideration of the minister and the government, that if this matter

could stand until October I believe it would be to the advantage of the house and the people of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Alphonse Fournier: that the house go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.



LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
205. Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Board of transport commissioners for Canada-
529. Administration, operation and maintenance, $681,220.
Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I do not know
whether this item has anything to do with the Canso undertaking, but at some stage we should have a more definite statement from the Minister of Transport as to why action is so long delayed in bringing down the recommendation of the engineers with respect to the construction of the Canso bridge. There is an increasing feeling in Nova Scotia that it is being held up at some place for some reason, either by the engineers who have been paid a considerable sum for it and have had it before them for many months, or by the department, or by some other people. The people in Nova Scotia are very much disappointed with conditions at the present time. Are we to have the report of the engineers? I should like a statement from the minister as to what his attitude is and the attitude of the government with respect to the report. The people in Nova Scotia, almost without exception, are demanding that there be a permanent crossing over Canso. It has been promised them, and they do not want to see it sidetracked. At the present time we are entitled to a full and complete statement from the minister as to the report of those engineers and as to the attitude of the department.


Lionel Chevrier: This item is one having to do with
the board of transport commissioners. The Canso project cannot be discussed on this item. We have already disposed of one item concerning Canso. I said this morning that 1 would make a statement when I tabled the report of the board of engineers which will be before the session ends.
Supply-Transport


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister state when he will be able to make this statement, and whether any action is to be taken by his department or by the government with respect to the construction of this project?


Lionel Chevrier: When we deal with the report I will be able to make the statement, but not on this item.


Mr. Adamson:: Will the minister elucidate the function of the board of transport commissioners concerning level crossings? I sun referring to a crossing that he knows about, namely, the one on Dundas street near Toronto. It is entirely beyond the means of the grade crossing fund to deal with because it is a very expensive matter. I have been to the board of transport commissioners about this matter and they have offered to sit in the town of Islington to discuss the matter smd to decide whether the grade separation should be built or not. Can the minister elucidate what the function is because there have been a great many inquiries of the board of transport commissioners with regard to this. Do they sit as a court and decide whether the grade separation shall be proceeded with? Just exactly what do they do?


Lionel Chevrier: The functions of the board of transport commissioners are clearly set out in the Railway Act with reference to applications relating to grade crossings. The application, as a rule, is made by a municipality or other bodies interested, and the board may after a hearing find that the crossing is one which should be authorized, or a certain proportion of the cost be paid out of the grade crossing fund, the remainder to be divided equally or proportionately between the railway and the applicant.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Then I gather that they sit and decide first of all whether the work should be proceeded with and then they apportion the cost between the municipality, the railway company and the grade crossing separation fund?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-
531. Steamship subventions as detailed in the estimates, $3,779,875.
Mr. Higgins:: I should like to ask a question with reference to details on page 506, Newfoundland coastal steamship services.


Lionel Chevrier: What item is that?


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am referring to item 531 and the details on page 506, which read: "Newfoundland coastal steamship services".

Private Bills


Lionel Chevrier: The western services,
$445,000 the eastern services $1,700,000, Newioundland coastal services, $1,590,000.


Gordon Francis Higgins: What does it mean? I do not quite follow that.


Lionel Chevrier: These are the subsidies paid to the Canadian National Railways for operation of the steamship services in the province of Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Does that mean there is a loss to that extent?


Lionel Chevrier: It may and it may not mean that; it would depend upon the position of the applicant company. In the case of the Canadian National Railways it so happens that it is a financial loss to that extent.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It has nothing at all to do with new equipment or anything of that nature?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is the operation of the steamship service.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Operation loss for the coming year?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Percy Chapman Black: I prefer this item would stand. It is six o'clock and I have some more questions to ask.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BANKING AND COMMERCE


Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Hallon):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the house to revert to presenting committee reports. I should like to table the eighth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move concurrence in this report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS On the order for private bills:
William James Henderson: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock Bill No. 354, letter V-ll of the Senate, an act to incorporate First Canadian Reinsurance Company, was reported back to the house by the chairman of the [Mr. Higgins.)
banking and commerce committee, and the report was concurred in. The bill was not amended with the exception that the name of the company was changed. It was recommended that the name be changed from First Canadian Reinsurance Company to the Great Lakes Reinsurance Company. I would ask for unanimous consent of the house to have this bill placed on the order paper for consideration by committee of the whole immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Kingston City?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



FIRST CANADIAN REINSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 354, to incorporate First Canadian Reinsurance Company-Mr. Henderson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
George Alexander Cruickshank: I should like to ask a few questions. As I understand it, there is an amendment to change the name of the company. The original bill is an act to incorporate First Canadian Reinsurance Company. It is a great privilege in Canada even to incorporate a company and to have a name such as that. I presume there must be a reason for changing the name, and when it is more or less sprung on us I should like to know why. I agreed to give unanimous consent to considering the bill now. If any of my colleagues would like to speak on my behalf I would be delighted to sit down and give them the opportunity, particularly as I realize that they are far more qualified than I am to speak on a matter so important. I had the privilege this afternoon of seeing a bill pass that made me regret more than ever the fact that I can never aspire to a position that some others may. I grant them that great privilege.
1 should like to know the reason for the change in the name of the company. I presume it wants to do business in all parts of Canada including my province and riding. We are not so much interested in reinsurance in my riding as we are in insurance, but as the name is being changed there are one or two questions I want to ask. I do not want to be called to order because I very seldom am. There is a list of the directors of the company. I presume they are all residents of the Dominion of Canada, and I presume that the stock, which I understand is to be in the amount of $500,000, will be sold within Canada. One who is far better versed in finance than I am is asking me why it should all be sold in Canada. However, presuming

it is going to be sold in Canada, or even outside of Canada, I should like to know the denominations of the stock, whether it is going to be $100, $500 or $1,000 shares. I might be interested in buying a few shares myself.
I am not altogether sure that it is good business for a company intending to deal in reinsurance-and I repeat the word "reinsurance"-to sell all the stock in one lump sum to one individual. For that reason I should like to know more about it from the sponsor, and I am sure the sponsor wants to tell me and wants to tell the people of Canada. When you come before the house sponsoring a bill, and particularly such an important measure as this one, you naturally want the people of Canada to have all the details at their disposal. You want them to know where all the directors reside. You want people to know not only the total amount of stock that is to be sold but the denominations in which it will be sold. I should like the sponsor to give me a little information.
First of all may I repeat that I should like the sponsor to tell me why the name of the company is to be changed. For instance, I remember that a couple of years ago a very strong investment company down the street had its name changed. I believe the head office used to be in Renfrew and they moved it down by the Rideau club and changed the name of the company. At that time I wondered why the name was being changed although I have no doubt there was good reason for its being changed. I have no doubt it enhanced the value of the stock and the security of the people who invested in that company. However, when you change the name and move from such an outstanding district as one of the suburbs of Ottawa, there must be a reason for it. I should like the sponsor to explain why the name of this company is being changed at the last moment. Then I should like to know the denominations of the stock that are to be sold.


The Deputy Chairman:: If we are to proceed in an orderly manner questions with respect to the title will have to be dealt with at the time of calling the title, and questions relating to the capital stock will have to be dealt with on clause 3 and other sections of the bill. Of course the sponsor may now reply to the questions asked by the hon. member having relation to clause 1.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Surely under this item the sponsor can give an explanation of the reason for changing the name at the last moment, in the dying days of the session. The session cannot die soon enough so far
Private Bills
as I am concerned. Surely the sponsor can explain why the change is being made in the name.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would point out to the hon. member that the bill is called clause by clause, and then we call the preamble and title. When the title is called the explanation the hon. member has requested can be given.


William James Henderson: Section 1 was amended
in committee by striking out the title "First Canadian Reinsurance Company" and substituting therefor "Great Lakes Reinsurance Company".


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is so.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Am I in order in asking why that title was changed?


William James Henderson: In the committee it was
felt that the original title might be somewhat misleading to the people and not in the interests of the Canadian people as a whole, so it was decided that another name should be substituted therefor. With the approval of the superintendent of insurance, I believe, and after a review of his records, it was considered that Great Lakes Reinsurance Company as a title would not be to the prejudice of the Canadian people.


George Alexander Cruickshank: This new name would
have no connection with the proposed international waterway, I suppose?


William James Henderson: I do not believe so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-Capital stock.
George Alexander Cruickshank: How is this stock to be
disposed of?


William James Henderson: I believe the hon. member for Fraser Valley asked a question as to the par value of the stock. As I understand it the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act provides that if not otherwise provided in the bill the par value shall be $100, and it is not otherwise provided in this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 359, for the relief of John Brock Short.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Joseph Duchesne.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Helen Marion Peacock Rondeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 364, for the relief of Rodolphe Boisjoly.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	368,	for	the	relief	of	Theresa
Verna Brisson Humphreys.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	369,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Shapiro Ram.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	371,	for	the	relief	of	Dorothy
Chaffee Caduc.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Flora Muriel Crane Keane.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Opal Jean Ellis Pike.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	384,	for	the	relief	of	Elphege
Fournier.-Mr. Winkler.
Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: On division.



MARIE ELIZABETH ROSE ANGE COUSINEAU BROUSSEAU

Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 394, for the relief of Marie Elizabeth Rose Ange Cousineau Brousseau.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Winkler moves that I do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on the said bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. Mr. Speaker; this bill should go to the private bills committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I probably misunderstood the motion. Does the house still wish this bill to go to the private bills committee? If not there will have to be unanimous consent. Is it the wish of hon. members to consider Bill No. 394 in committee of the whole instead of sending it to the private bills committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it should be pointed out that what is being asked for is that a stage usually required in connection with divorce bills be dispensed with. It is not my understanding that the house feels that way about these bills.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is not unanimous consent I shall have to refer this bill to the private bills committee.



JOHN ATHERTON CRITCHLEY

Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 232, for the relief of John Atherton Critchley.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, by a vote of 11 to 5 in the committee on miscellaneous private bills the subject matter

of this bill has been returned to the House of Commons. This is the second time this bill has been up for second reading, the subject matter thereof having been sent back to that committee on the previous occasion. So we have before us this bill, the evidence relating to which I hold in my hand, asking for the granting of a divorce for the relief of one whom I will call Mr. X. 1 do not know Mr. X personally nor do I know Mrs. X, but I am sorry for both. I should like to help them both or either of them, if it lay within my power to disentangle the skein into which their lives have become tangled. Great as may be my interest in the troubles of these particular people mentioned in Bill No. 232, there is something that even transcends that interest, and that is my desire that the honour and dignity of this House of Commons be preserved.
I believe, sir, that in the stress and strain of our lives here, in the tedium of routine and in the bickering of daily debate, we are inclined, through our closeness to what we are doing, to lose sight somewhat of the importance and greatness of our task which I conceive to be the moulding and welding of this young country into a great nation. We have here a great tradition. The mantles of great men have fallen upon our shoulders. I suggest that tradition has its drawbacks and dangers as well as its advantages. Precedent has begun to harden into tradition in this house. A precedent which was established, and has continued by expediency, has over the years begun to harden into tradition in the matter of the consideration or lack of consideration of these divorce cases like the one in this Bill No. 232 in which Mr. X is suing for divorce. These cases emanate from provinces which have no divorce courts of their own. Those are the provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec, notedly the province of Quebec. Thus it is that tonight we are considering this Bill No. 232 in which Mr. X is suing Mrs. X for divorce. One of the greatest heritages of this country, which explains to some degree our virility, is the mixture of races that we have.
We have great statesmen in our tradition. We have great parliamentary traditions behind us. We have the Pyms and the Hampdens, the Gladstones and the Pitts. The French have their great statesmen, some of them translated to this soil, like Cartier and Laurier. Those of United States origin have their Washingtons and Lincolns. I am, in all seriousness and earnestness, asking hon. members to ask themselves what those statesmen, who have handed on all these glorious parliamentary traditions, would think of us tonight if they knew we were stooping to the consideration of Bill No. 232, a case for

the divorce of Mr. X from his wife; that we were turning this great parliamentary-institution into a mere divorce court, because a mere divorce court it is. There is no question about that.
Sometimes I think, perhaps it is a presumptuous thought, that there may be in this parliament at this very moment men whom posterity may some day call great. I am sure that you, sir, with your characteristic modesty would deny that title as applied to yourself, but there are those who may think otherwise. Some of the men whom I have mentioned were not considered great by their contemporaries, either, and it was only time that elevated them in the esteem of succeeding generations. Some of them were great parliamentarians. They mapped the course of great nations. They laid down the paths that we should follow. I would suggest that the path we are following tonight is not one of the paths they intended us to follow.
Here we are considering Bill No. 232. I would ask if this great forum of the Canadian people is to be turned into a divorce court. I wonder if there is any other parliament anywhere that has stooped to such a procedure. We are the representatives of the Canadian people, sent here for a totally different purpose. In considering divorce cases we are attempting to handle work for which we are not at all fitted. Some of us may be fitted for it. There are clever lawyers in this house, but I am not one of them. Are we to descend to listening to these tales of knocking at bedroom doors, to devoting our time to hearing about investigators prowling up darkened stairs and sticking scotch tape on the outside of doors? Are we to descend to the unfolding of divorce drama on the stage of Montreal boarding houses, listening with unwilling ears to this sordid and conflicting evidence, produced in many cases by professional investigators who take that way of earning their living.
It is becoming the custom in this house, and certainly in the private bills committee, not to consider these bills at all in the ordinary sense of the word "consider". The practice has grown up, as you, sir, very well know, of passing these bills en masse, forty or fifty at a time, without even the formality of reading the numbers. When my hon. friend the chairman of the committee started consideration of these bills tonight, he had to be told to read the numbers, and naturally so because that is not the custom which he has been following. We in this house are sick and tired of that procedure. It is my belief that all the members of this house are sick and tired of that procedure, probably including the sponsor of these bills, our genial chairman of the private bills committee. The
Private Bills-Divorce
perpetuation of this backdoor method of granting divorces is to me a sign of political and national immaturity.
In dealing with this bill I am not here entering into a discussion of divorce at all from a moral point of view. There are those whose religious beliefs teach them that divorce is wrong. I respect those views. I respect the men that hold those views. The province of Quebec does not desire to have divorce courts set up within her boundaries. That is completely within the rights of that province, and those rights must be respected. But the individual rights of the citizens of this province to come here and obtain a divorce in the only manner that is presently available to them must also be respected. I suggest to you that there are two courses open to us: first, to continue this method of turning this house and the private bills committee into a divorce court. If we are going to do that, then some of us feel that we must accept the responsibility a little more than we have done in the past. We shall have to give to those bills the proper consideration so that we can pass upon them without violating our consciences. We shall have to weigh the evidence in each case before passing judgment.
There are objections to that course. In the first place this is not a judicial, but a legislative, body. Careful study of each of these cases would take up most of the time which we now devote to the passing of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but we are now considering a particular divorce bill. I believe the hon. member's remarks are a little too general. I probably did not interrupt hon. members at the beginning of the session, but now that the session is drawing to a close, and there are other private bills on the order paper, I think hon. members should confine their remarks to the particular bill which is before the house.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have always understood that there was a certain amount of latitude on second reading. This bill is not, like the others, being considered in committee. Perhaps if I were to apply my remarks to this particular bill, Your Honour might allow me to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may speak to the principle of this bill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My whole argument is in relation to this particular bill. I am prepared to deal with it and, if necessary, with the evidence in connection with it and with the clauses of it, if that is desirable.

Private Bills-Divorce


Mr. Speaker:: Then I would ask the hon. member not to speak too generally about divorce, but rather to direct his remarks toward the principle of the particular bill that is now before the house.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think I can relate the remarks which I am about to make to this particular Bill No. 232, because I am going to suggest that, in considering this particular Bill No. 232, we should have another course open to us. Is that remark too general, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That would not be in order at this time.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Then I shall go back to the bill.
I should like to say that the Senate committee, in passing this bill amongst others, themselves indicated that they would like to get rid of their present business of looking after them. This bill is one of those upon which the chairman of the committee of the other place commented when he said-and I quote from the report as follows:
It is to be hoped that something will be done in that regard in the near future.
That was in explanation of a remark that he made in regard to these other bills, to the effect:
. . . that parliament has not seen fit to solve the problem of parliamentary divorce by setting up suitable courts or tribunals before which the numerous cases from Quebec and Newfoundland can be heard.
There are certain faults that I have to find about the consideration of even this bill which had a certain amount of consideration before the committee on miscellaneous private bills, extending over two or three hours. For I submit that even that amount of consideration, where some of the gentlemen did not even have the evidence in front of them, was something of a farce. I think we should get rid of this particular bill. As a matter of fact, I am going to suggest that we get rid of it; and having said that, I hope I may be permitted to suggest that we should get rid of all these particular bills, including Bill No. 232. Such a method, of course-and it is a method that has been proposed by my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-would be to allow these bills to go before some other court such as the exchequer court sitting in Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the hon. member should stray too far away from the principle of this bill. I would ask him to direct his remarks to the principle of this bill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I think I should perhaps be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to defend my remarks
IMr. Knight.)
about the Senate with regard to this bill; because when I am commenting upon their actions in regard to this bill, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am making no reflection whatever upon those gentlemen. I believe that this bill had a thorough and complete investigation by the Senate committee; and I believe that they gave their judgment in accordance with their views. It may be a tedious and thankless task. That committee is made up of sensible men. Some of them are lawyers. I am sure that they were able to handle this bill by a proper method. It was suggested that it might be left entirely in their hands. So far as I am concerned, I should like it if this Bill No. 232 had never come out of the Senate; I should be glad1 that, if necessary, their decision should be taken, and that we should not have been bothered with it. But having been bothered with it, and having felt the responsibility of looking into the evidence in connection with this Bill No. 232, I have come to the conclusion that this Bill No. 232 is a case in which there is a reasonable doubt at least as to whether Mr. X should receive a divorce from Mrs. X, his wife.
I promised that I would come directly to the bill itself and I have a word to two to say upon that. The group to which I belong has insisted that we give this bill thorough examination.


Hughes Cleaver: May I ask the hon. member a question?
' Mr. Knight: Not just at the moment. I have had some of the hon. gentleman's questions in the miscellaneous private bills committee. It is my privilege, as I understand it, to answer or not to answer questions put by the hon. gentleman, at my own pleasure.
As I say we have given, and we intend to continue to give, full consideration to these bills. Our limited examination of this bill and others has slowed down but little the passage of these bills through the house. I admit that I am slowing down the passage of this one to some extent tonight. I refer to this particular Bill No. 232. But heretofore we have not held up any bill because we felt that to do so without notice would not be fair. These are bona fide people who have paid their fees in these particular cases, and who have come through the House of Commons miscellaneous private bills committee. Then for them not to get the divorce is something we do not think would be fair, without due notice.
In this case we have seen to it that there was a discussion. As a member of the House of Commons it is my privilege to ask that a

Private Bills-Divorce
certain procedure be followed, Since we are a divorce court, this bill must be examined by the house. It is my privilege to ask for a vote upon this bill, and I intend to exercise that privilege. Those of my hon. friends who are opposed to the passage of this bill, being opposed to divorce in general as a matter of conviction, and whose custom it has been to oppose these bills merely by shouting "on division", will now have the opportunity to be counted and registered by name as being in opposition. When this bill comes to a vote, those who are not perhaps necessarily opposed to the principle of divorce will have an opportunity to express their disapproval of the procedure by which this bill has been handled. One might say that that is a rather drastic procedure as far as the principals of this bill are concerned. But I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is one bill as to which there is a reasonable doubt; and if there is a reasonable doubt, that doubt should be for the benefit of the respondent and not for the petitioner.
In voting on this bill there is yet another class of hon. members to be considered. I know that some of my hon. friends on the other side of the house, my colleagues in the particular divorce committee-that is a short name I have for the miscellaneous private bills committee-have considered this bill carefully. I know that they are convinced that this bill for divorce should be granted. So those gentlemen, this third class of people, will have an opportunity to vote on this bill, and to vote in favour of it.
In regard to the passage of bills like this one through the house it has been said-and I think the suggestion came from my friend the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir)-that these bills should be considered in detail in the miscellaneous private bills committee and not in this house. I therefore want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how this particular bill, No. 232, was handled in that particular miscellaneous private bills committee. You will remember that the subject matter of this particular bill, not the bill itself, was referred back to that committee. I shall break no confidence here and I shall tell no secrets because the proceedings of that committee are open to the public. This bill, No. 232, the petition of Mr. X for a divorce from his wife, was considered on June 13 at ten o'clock. On the orders of the day there were three classes of item, three private members' bills, religious bills and the like, and there were 123 divorce bills which had received second reading in the house, and then there was the subject matter of this particular bill which was to be considered. The three private bills were called, and I want the house
to note that in each case there was a sponsor or parliamentary agent to explain the bills to the committee. Then came the 123 divorce bills, all of them. I did protest to my colleagues-and they will bear me out in this- I did protest and objected to the way these bills were being handled in that committee. I do want to say here, and I want to put it on the public records, that we did not hear a reviewing of the evidence in any of those bills. With this protested bill it was different. Members of the committee asked some questions of lawyers who appeared, one for the petitioner and one for the respondent. At the end of that time, having in some cases considered the evidence before, certain of the members were beginning to see what were the facts in regard to this particular bill.
I might say that the 123 bills which were not up for second reading, but had been referred to the miscellaneous private bills committee for examination were passed by that committee without being read by name or number or by any other method. These 123 bills passed in exactly two minutes by my wrist watch, a procedure which affected twice 123 or 246 principals, and probably a greater number of children. Just two minutes were taken in the miscellaneous private bills committee for that purpose, and I shall challenge any of my hon. friends on the other side of the house who do not approve tonight of what I am doing here to dispute that statement.
Now, to come to the bill itself and the reasons why I say that this is a bill upon which we can safely centre our protest as to the method used. It is a bill, the opposing of which will create no great hardship on anyone. I shall put on the record the reasons why I take that stand. I know that there are some of my hon. friends in the committee who do not agree with me in that regard, but that of course is their privilege. From this study and from the review of the evidence by the lawyers in question I would like to submit the following reasons why this bill should not be passed. I am talking about Bill No. 232 now before this house for second reading. I have written down, sir, and with your permission I shall read the six reasons that I have here as arguments.
One, that some of the evidence is contradictory, and what evidence is not contradictory, is quite inconclusive; two, that the husband had applied for annulment some years before but that it had not been granted to him; three, that when both of these people, the petitioner and respondent in this case, had applied for a legal separation in the civil courts it was to the respondent of Bill

Private Bills-Divorce
232 and not to the petitioner that such separation was granted; four, that the manner of the woman's life had been brought about to a degree if not totally by the desertion of the husband in the previous years; five, that he was alleged to have left his wife alone and deserted and without care when she was seriously ill; six, that the motive for bringing the application for divorce would appear to be-I say in my opinion-a desire to evade any further payment of the weekly allowance which the husband had been compelled to pay to his wife under the legal separation to which I have made reference.
Now, sir, those are the reasons why I think this is one bill which we can oppose without creating any great hardship on anyone. In making this case, sir, of course I say I have no legal training. I presume that is readily apparent. I can simply state the things in this bill as I see them. One of the less kind of my hon. friends suggested in the committee that I was quite ignorant of legal proceedings. Exactly; that is just the point I want to make, and I have already confessed to it. I said that he was unkind, but he was kinder than he knew, because he made the exact point that I wish to make, namely, that we are not qualified to act as judges on Bill No. 232, or any other divorce bill, at least I am not; and yet it is one of the things that I have to do. It is one of the things with which I have to reconcile my conscience; it is one of the things for which I have to take the responsibility, this breaking up of a home. How then can we act as judges in a case like this about which we know nothing except in so far as the lawyers were able to rehash the evidence? But we did not see the witnesses. We could not judge of the kind of people they were. We had no idea how reliable their evidence would be except from the stories, contradictory, that we heard in the evidence. How then can we pass judgment upon cases of which we know nothing?
Sir, I do not think that a case like this Bill No. 232 should be a case of A suing B for divorce in order that it may be out of the way so that the case of C versus D could come up. It seems to me that, in a case of this sort where there are human beings involved, and where there are often children, divorce judges, like the judges in a juvenile court, should have special qualifications for the work which they are doing, understanding, interest and sympathy, and some knowledge of psychology, and above all an interest in bringing these people together again, this Mr. X and his wife mentioned in Bill No. 232, in making an attempt to patch this broken marriage before the granting of a 
divorce, and only when it is seen and admitted that that divorce is inevitable should divorce be granted; and finally there should be some regard to any children of such a union.
Would any hon. member in this house venture to say that this particular institution of the miscellaneous private bills committee approaches the ideal which I have been painting as to what a divorce court should be? For as things stand, this is a divorce court dealing with Bill No. 232, the case of Mr. X and Mrs. X, his wife.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I shall be finished in just one minute. I am now going to move a motion. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and before I move this motion may I say that we procrastinate on this thing from year to year. That is why I am moving a motion on this particular bill. I think we shall have to come to an end by refusing to approve of the method that we are using in this Bill No. 232. We must no longer be unwilling to face this issue, no longer unwilling to grasp this nettle, because the vacillation that we are indicating here is not the stamp of a great parliament, of a united nation, but is, as I have said, the sign of immaturity national and political. Let us rid ourselves of this undignified pretence; let us rid ourselves of this scourge and get on with the work that we were sent here to do.
I oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy):
That the word "now" be deleted, and that the words "this day six months hence," be added at the end of the question.
In opposing this bill, Mr. Speaker, may I say this in conclusion: I can do no other. Were I to support this bill, and were it to pass this House of Commons, I should have it upon my conscience that through such action here we will have accomplished one thing only-


An hon. Member:: I do not think you have any.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: If we pass this bill we shall have accomplished one thing, namely, we shall have deprived this woman of her only means of sustenance, a woman who is past middle age, broken in health and who has already suffered much. Let other hon. members of this house, let my hon. friends who have interrupted me tonight who are secure in their livelihood, and doubtless in their own integrity, think well before they cast at her this final crushing stone.


Mr. A. C. Stewart (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I aim to be brief. We are not here to discuss

the whole matter of divorce proceedings. This bill is simply following a precedent which has been set in parliament while the hon. member who has just spoken at length was here for many years. This petitioner has come to parliament in accordance with the usual practice. He has had to pay to have this bill presented, he has had to pay his lawyers and so forth.
I am not going to review the evidence in this case because the galleries are occupied, but a Senate committee which had as chairman a gentleman skilled in the law, which had as a member a gentleman skilled in medical science, has found that there was sufficient evidence of adultery to satisfy it. Then a committee of this house re-examined that evidence and a majority of that committee-we had a standing vote-felt that there was definite evidence of adultery. No reasonable man could come to any other conclusion but that these two at three o'clock in the morning, considering the way they were dressed or undressed, had been guilty of adultery.
There was ample evidence to support the petition and a committee of this house adopted the bill. Therefore I am against the motion. If my hon. friend wants to change the divorce laws of the Dominion of Canada, this is not the way to go about it. The proceedings in this case were the same as the proceedings in other cases which other hon. members of his group have countenanced for many years. In view of the fact that the Senate committee and a committee of this house have examined the evidence in connection with this bill, and in view of the fact that there is ample evidence to satisfy any reasonable man there was adultery, I submit that the petitioner is entitled to his divorce.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me that the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart) has his wires crossed in respect to the evidence he has been reading. Perhaps he has been reading evidence in another case. I do not think the evidence of the case before us would indicate the things that he states. I rise to support the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight).
Over the years I have spoken in this house on a number of occasions on these divorce bills. I want to point out from the start that I am not against divorce provided the statutory grounds have been proved. But I do insist that before any divorce bill passes this house I must be satisfied that such grounds for divorce have been proved.
The hon. member for Yorkton has eulogized somewhat the qualifications of certain members of the other house who sit on the Senate
Private Bills-Divorce
divorce committee and attempt to exercise their good judgment. I agree with the hon. member that they are men of integrity; I agree that some of them are men of legal ability; but that does not mean that this house must swallow their decisions holus-bolus. Even the best jurists misjudge at times.
The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver)
suggested on one occasion that some of us were not skilled in legal matters. I must confess that I am not skilled in legal matters, but when it comes to reading evidence and attempting to discover from the evidence whether grounds for divorce have been proved I submit that it does not take a legal mind to discover whether proof has been made. As a matter of fact I think sometimes the legal mind can overlook some human elements that enter into cases such as those that come before us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: It is all right; the hon. member was not tapping his desk, he was knocking his head. I stand with the hon. member for Saskatoon in his motion to give this bill the six months hoist. I do so on the ground that the reason for divorce has not been proved in this particular case. I have gone through the evidence rather carefully and I am perfectly convinced in my own mind that the hon. member for Saskatoon is right when he draws the conclusion that the petitioner is simply seeking to absolve himself from responsibility in connection with the terms of the judicial separation which involves the payment to the wife of a certain amount for her support.
I notice the clock states that it is nine o'clock and I move the adjournment of this debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. W. A. Robinson (Simcoe East):: Before Your Honour leaves the chair I should like to move:
That the time for the consideration of private bills be extended this day until eleven o'clock p.m., or such earlier hour as the remainder of the same still appearing on the order paper have been disposed of.
I introduce this motion under citation 856 in the second edition of Beauchesne's which reads:
Private bills come up for consideration in the house on Monday afternoon and from 8 o'clock to 9 o'clock on Tuesday and Friday evenings. By general consent the hour may be extended, but if objection be taken, the house must go on with the other business on the order paper.

Private Bills
I fully realize, Mr. Speaker, that the citation might lend itself to two interpretations.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe it is after nine o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has risen on a point of order and I think I should hear him.


An hon. Member:: He started before nine o'clock.


William Alfred Robinson: I am hoping, Mr. Speaker, that you will rule that the phrase "general consent" does not mean "unanimous consent". You will notice that the phrase "unanimous consent" is used in other citations and in other standing orders whereas in citation 856 the phrase "general consent" is used. I think you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members will realize that, in view of happenings in the past several months, I would have a snowball's chance of getting unanimous consent, but I am hoping that I can get the great majority of members of the house, if they are allowed to vote on this motion, to agree that we might have a little more time.
I might say in that respect, as I have said on several previous occasions, that those of us who have been sponsoring private bills this session have already lost a certain amount of time. We lost our Monday afternoons some time ago. We also lost an hour when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) introduced the budget. We also lost twenty minutes to half an hour one evening when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) made an important statement. Therefore I feel that the house might give some consideration to a motion of this kind so that those of us who still have private bills on the order paper -may have some chance of having them dealt with by the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I am inclined to think that, as we are considering private bills in accordance with standing order No. 15, we could not change the order of business under standing order 15 unless there was a motion as to which forty-eight hours' notice had been given, or which met with the unanimous consent of the house. I think under standing order 15 I would be required to interpret "general consent" as meaning "unanimous consent", and unless there is unanimous consent I cannot put the motion which has been moved by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Robinson).


William Alfred Robinson: May I ask whether I have unanimous consent?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, he definitely has not.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. Accordingly I cannot put the motion. The hour reserved for public and private bills having expired, the house will resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Canadian maritime commission-
531.	Steamship subventions, as detailed in the estimates, $3,779,875.


Percy Chapman Black: Before the dinner recess I was about to ask the minister for a statement under the general heading of Canadian maritime commission. The minister promised a statement on the policy for the present year with respect to the Canadian deep sea shipping industry as well as a statement with respect to the North Atlantic planning board for ocean shipping. The matter was brought before the minister on May 17 by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. No report has yet been supplied to the house, and I should like the minister to make a statement.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if we could have that in the next item. It has to do with the transfer and subsidy policy. This item is for steamship services. If we could pass it, perhaps I could make a statement on the next item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
532.	Assistance tor Canadian flag ocean shipping industry, $375,000.
Lionel Chevrier: With reference to the North Atlantic planning policy, at the request of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I did make a statement which I placed on Hansard, and I think perhaps it will not be necessary for me to deal with that again now. With reference to the maritime commission, I tabled the annual report some days ago- perhaps it was yesterday-but for the hon. member's information let me say that general conditions with reference to world shipping are far better now than they have been for quite some time. As a matter of fact the world shipping situation has undergone a complete change, and this has been of great benefit to the deep sea shipping industry. The change can be attributed to a variety of reasons including increased international tension, the increased need of ships for transporting facilities and supplies to the Korean theatre of war, the sudden need in

the latter part of 1950 for additional bottoms for the movement of coal and other commodities to Europe. That has brought into great demand ships of the Liberty and Park types of which Canada has a substantial number. Canadian owners operating these ships have had substantial profits in the last period.
With reference to the subsidy policy, there is only one application which has been made for transfer of flag from Canada to the United Kingdom. If the hon. member will look at the supplementary estimates he will see there a small item to cover the remaining ships. I think an amount of $3 million was set aside, following the announcement of policy made by the Prime Minister, to care for some forty ships at the rate of $75,000 each. Some thirty-seven applications have been made and approved of, although the amount of the subsidy has not been paid in each of these cases. There remain some payments which are being looked after by the supplementary estimates.
With reference to the replacement plan, it has worked out very well. There is a substantial amount of money in the escrow fund, and this money has been used on numerous occasions for the construction of ships. Not only in the great lakes shipping area but also on the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast there are owners who have taken advantage of the replacement plan and have constructed a number of ships varying from large ferry vessels to large lake carriers. In fact one of the largest lake carriers ever to be built in Canada was launched at one of the upper lake ports on Saturday of last week. The transfer policy has worked out very well, and I think because of it, it can be said that the position of the operators is better today than it was at the time it was instituted. At that time there were some 37 or 40 ships out of employment. Today there are none, in fact there is a scarcity of bottoms at this time. Generally speaking I think that is the position in so far as the transfer and subsidy policy is concerned, and the replacement plan, the subsidy policy and the position of the escrow fund.


Percy Chapman Black: Then do I
understand from the minister that no further announcement has been made with respect to the North Atlantic planning board under NATO?


Lionel Chevrier: No. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I placed on record a statement which I think covered the position as far as I could go, because much of it was of a strategic nature. I indicated then that it was impossible to go
Supply-Transport
much further than the press release agreed upon by the members of NATO at London last year.


Percy Chapman Black: I understood the minister offered to put it on Hansard but there was some objection in the house and that was not actually done.


Lionel Chevrier: I put on the record in substance what was in the press release. At the time I said I had no objection to putting the press release itself on Hansard but Mr. Speaker indicated that would be out of order, and the house did not give unanimous consent. I would be glad to send my hon. friend a copy of the press release if he wishes it.


Percy Chapman Black: I would be glad if the minister would do that.


Mr. Pearkes:: Could the minister say how many ocean going vessels there are flying the Canadian flag today?


Lionel Chevrier: When the plan was first put into operation there were 178 ships. Of these 98 have been transferred to the U.K. flag, so the balance are operating under the Canadian flag.


George Randolph Pearkes: And no additional ships are being brought in?


Lionel Chevrier: No, sir.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Has this vote any relation at all to the loan of $12 million to the Ming Sung Company, which was guaranteed by the government?


Lionel Chevrier: Not the slightest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National harbours board-
533.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1951 on any or all of the following accounts: reconstruction and capital expenditures, Halifax, $1,243,000; Quebec, $22,000; Port Colborne, $112,000; Churchill, $161,000; generally unforeseen and miscellaneous, $200,000, $1,738,000.
Gordon Francis Higgins: On a number of occasions, the last quite recently, I asked the minister whether the province of Newfoundland had made a request for the establishment of a national harbour. To all such questions the minister replied that no request had been made, and I understand that is correct. However, in the brief of the province to the royal commission on transportation recommendation No. 15 was that a national harbour be established at Bay d'Espoir on the southwest coast of Newfoundland. In the event that the minister receives a recommendation during the adjournment I trust he will take into consideration the fact that I an not asking

Supply-Transport
that a harbour be established there. If there is to be only one national harbour in Newfoundland it should be at St. John's. If there is to be more than one it would be all right to have the second one at Bay d'Espoir, but I think St. John's is the only suitable place for a national harbour at the present time. I would like the minister to bear that in mind.


Percy Chapman Black: I would like a statement by the minister on this $1,243,000 to be spent at Halifax. I would like to know what is involved in that expenditure and how far the work has advanced.


Lionel Chevrier: Most of that is for the construction of the new pier No. 3 and the sheds at the deep water terminals. These sheds are to cost $3 million, and of the total this year $1,230,000 is for the replacement of the old timber pile wharf and the single storey wooden transit shed. A contract was given for the construction of two sheds at pier 3 in November, 1950, and the work should be completed by the end of December.


Percy Chapman Black: Then I understand that this $3 million will have been expended and the work completed at that time, and that of that total about $1,750,000 has been expended already? '


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Percy Chapman Black: And $1,243,000 will complete what is proposed to be done?


Lionel Chevrier: That remains to be expended.


Percy Ellis Wright: What works are being constructed at Churchill, for which there is a vote of $161,000?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a staff house for the men working there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans, investments and advances-
Air services-
568. To authorize and provide for a revolving fund for the purchase of materials and supplies to be held in northwest communications system stores for use on both capital and maintenance works. $100,000.
Mr. Fulton:: May we have from the minister an authoritative statement as to the relation^ ship between this northwest communications system and the northwest communications system which is operated either by or on behalf of the Department of National Defence. In the .public accounts committee some two or three weeks ago we spent an hour or more one morning going over the public accounts in relation to the northwest communications system as reported in the public accounts of that year under the Department of National

Defence. There they assured us, though at the time I was there at any rate they did not have a great deal of detail to back it up, that there was no relationship between the system operated by that department and the northwest communications system operated by the Department of Transport. Therefore I am wondering if the minister has the information on which to make an authoritative statement on the nature of this system in his department and the relationship between it and the system under the Department of National Defence.


Lionel Chevrier: This system was constructed by the United States government and taken over by the Canadian government by virtue of what was known as the Ilsley-Morgen-thau agreement of 1944, together with the Canol project and other projects in the Northwest Territories and the northwestern part of Canada. These assets were turned over to Canada for operation. This northwest communications system is operated by the Canadian National Railways for the use and on behalf of the Department of Transport, and this amount of $100,000 is a capital expenditure for additional facilities required on the system. In other words it is working capital for the land line system facilities in operation in that area.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this in connection with the Alaska highway? Is this a telephone and telegraph system on the highway itself?


Lionel Chevrier: It is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And it does not serve the military installations at all?


Lionel Chevrier: Only to a limited extent.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is chiefly a highway communications system?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.
Item agreed, to.
794. Departmental administration-further amount required, $70,779.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I have had a telegram and letter from the maintenance of way union in my railway centre asking for some sort of assistance, a bonus or something of the kind, in view of the high cost of living. If this were given it might avert another strike or something of the sort. All over the system, particularly on the Belleville division, a great many maintenance of way men have been laid off. On one branch line they have been cut down to almost half. This is really disrupting the men and the service. The men were laid off. I think each man has five miles of track to maintain, whereas previously he had three and a half miles. Can the minister tell us anything about that?


Lionel Chevrier: May I point out to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, that this is a vote for the administration of the Department of Transport, and therefore has nothing to do with the operation of the Canadian National lines. The Canadian National Railways budget was placed before the committee on railways and shipping some months ago, and passed. I shall be glad to tell the hon. gentleman that this does contain a vote for increase in salaries to the extent of $43,000 for employees of the department. In so far as the Canadian National Railway is concerned, I am not able to discuss it on this item.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I know that a great number of men have been laid off in this Belleville division, and that they have added ten or twelve officials to the staff.


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to bring it to the attention of the Canadian National Railway officials.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the minister if he will make some comment on whether it is proposed to take any action, probably not at this session but possibly at the next session, with respect to a recommendation made by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. This recommendation was made on June 14 and is embodied in the committee's minutes of proceedings of evidence, No. 8, as follows:
Consequent upon consideration of Bill No. 116 (Letter E of the Senate), intituled:	"An act
respecting British Columbia Telephone Company," it is recommended that your committee be empowered to make a special report on the question of extending the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners to enable them, in approving or revising tolls and charges of a company under its jurisdiction, to investigate fully and take into account transactions relating to companies having an intercorporate relationship with such company, and to make recommendations in respect thereof.
That report was presented to the house on Thursday, June 14, by the chairman of that standing committee. The recommendation of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines was adopted as a special recommendation to the house, because the committee felt that under its terms of reference it did not have the power to include that as a report on the bill which it was considering. It therefore asked the house, in effect, to enlarge the terms of reference to refer to it later the whole question of the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners with respect to intercorporate contracts when the board is considering a rate application. I do not imagine that it would be felt to be expedient that the committee be reconvened at this session, but I would ask the minister whether he is in a position to give any consideration to the 80709-300
Supply-Transport
matter, and whether it is intended to bring it before the house at the next session?


Lionel Chevrier: The matter to which my hon. friend refers has just recently been brought to my attention. I took cognizance of the recommendation made by the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, but I have not yet had an opportunity of discussing it with the chairman of the board of transport commissioners. I think I should, through courtesy to him, ask for his views. In any event, I am not in a position to say whether or not an amendment to the Railway Act would be required. If it is, consideration would have to be given to whether an amendment should be included along with the other amendments that are being made to the Railway Act. Personally, I do not think it should because the amendments that will be introduced at the fall session are those having to do with the report of the royal commission on transportation. If my hon. friend will allow me, I should like to give the matter further consideration before making any further comment on it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would point out to the minister that the committee did not ask that the Railway Act as such be referred to it, or an amendment to the Railway Act be considered. It asked that it be empowered to consider a general question as to whether or not the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners should be extended, and also to consider whether or not the board, at present, has the jurisdiction fully to take into account this intercorporate relationship when the board is dealing with a rate case. This subject matter would not, as I say, necessarily fall within the purview of any of the specific amendments to the Railway Act which are to be referred to that committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would have to be a separate reference to the committee.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree with the hon. member, but I think it may well require an amendment to some section of the Railway Act.


Percy Ellis Wright: Before the general item passes I want to bring to the minister's attention the matter of the serious congestion which is likely to arise at the elevators in western Canada when the new crop comes forward this fall. I know the minister has been giving careful attention to this subject up to date. As a matter of fact, not long ago he had enough lake carriers diverted to Port Arthur to move 16 million bushels of wheat out of those elevators, which relieved the congestion there up to June 23.
I just want to point out to him again that that will not be sufficient to take care of the

Supply-Transport
situation between now and the first of August. I should like him to keep close watch of the situation, because unless more lake carriers are diverted to the head of the lakes there will be a serious congestion this fall.


Lionel Chevrier: We are keeping in touch with it carefully.


Percy Chapman Black: Will the minister state whether there has been any change in the policy of patrolling the main line of the Canadian National Railway in Nova Scotia? Complaints or misgivings have been voiced to me by those interested in the safety of travel that there is no patrol on this part of the railway on Sunday.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to point out to the hon. member that this is not a railway item. We have dealt with those items several times this session. This is a departmental item, and I wonder if we could have that discussion at some other time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the item carries, Mr. Chairman, may I refer to the subject I mentioned? Do I understand from the minister it is his intention to discuss the recommendation of the committee with the chairman of the board of transport commissioners during the interval between this session and next session?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: So the minister will be in a position at the next session, then, to give us a definite answer and recommendation one way or the other.


Lionel Chevrier: I expect to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canal services-
796. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $1,489,597.
Percy Chapman Black: I am not going to hold up this item, but I see there is an amount of almost $10 million being provided for the maintenance of canal services in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: There is about $1,400,000.


Percy Chapman Black: Then, in the main estimate there is $8,140,244. In view of the representations made by a delegation that came from the maritime provinces, will the minister state whether any provision is being made for a further examination into the Chignecto canal?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry to say there is nothing in these estimates for the further consideration of the Chignecto canal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Railway and steamship services-
805. Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland-capital- further amount required, $500,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask about the division of ownership and responsibility at Port aux Basques in connection with the construction of the new dock and terminal facilities. What is the division of ownership and responsibility as between the railway company and the Department of Transport?


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of Transport will be the owner of the ship, and will entrust the ship for operation to the Canadian National Railways. The Department of Transport will also be the owner of the terminals at both Port aux Basques and North Sydney. In so far as the railway is concerned, the act of union has dealt with that and has transferred it, in so far as ownership is concerned to the dominion government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then	the
Department of Transport owns the dock at North Sydney also?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. That was included
in the transfer; and the new wharf which will be built will also be the property of the dominion government.


Gordon Francis Higgins: When does the minister
expect the facilities to be ready? When will the dock and other ship facilities be ready? When will the ship be ready?


Lionel Chevrier: In 1953, we expect.


Percy Chapman Black: I understood the minister to refer me to the item under this heading, railway and steamship services, under which to give a reply to the question I asked a few moments ago having to do with the reduction in patrolling on the Canadian National Railways on Sunday in eastern Canada, if such a policy has been put into effect.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate
to tell the hon. gentleman, who has had a great deal of experience, that this vote again is not a Canadian National Railway matter. This is a sum of money set aside for the building of terminals and the operation of the ferry. The Canadian National Railway items have all been disposed of and have been discussed on numerous occasions; but if the hon. gentleman insists on an answer, all I can tell him at this time is that it is not, as far as I know, the intention of the Canadian National Railway to reduce their staff or their employees in that particular. It may be that, because of the putting into effect of the 40-hour week, some revision

will have to be made. But on the whole, I am hopeful that it will not be nearly as disastrous as my hon. friend thinks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
Telecommunications division-airways and airports -radio aviation services-
807. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $494,000.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Might I ask the minister
this question. Apart from the extension of the one runway at Gander, is it proposed to do any other work in connection with either the runways or the terminal buildings?


Lionel Chevrier: This is exclusively a radio
item. The items having to do with airport extensions are under "Civil aviation division", item 812. This is all radio construction.


Angus MacInnis: Is item 807 the one the
minister was dealing with just now?


Lionel Chevrier: That is the one we are on,
yes.


Angus MacInnis: That is an item for $494,000. Then on the page where details are given, we find details of two items only. They are:
Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and land, $370,900.
Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $123,100.
Where are these works located? What is the nature of the construction? Will the minister give any other information that he can?


Lionel Chevrier: As I indicated earlier, these
are radio facilities in the Department of Transport. This is a construction vote for capital expenditures. For instance, at Fredericton, it is proposed to spend $40,000 for the construction of two dwellings and garage; at Gander, $10,000 for the construction of ILS; at Hope, B.C., $80,000 for the construction of a home beacon; at Lakehead, $30,000 for the construction of a remote receiver station; in Montreal, $15,000 for the relocation of an instrument landing system; in Saint John, N.B., the construction of a radio range station, $55,000; Sydney, $20,000, ILS; and so on down the line.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
Northwest communication system-
809. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $131,254.
Edmund Davie Fulton: This is an item relating to the northwest communication system about which 80709-3004
Supply-Transport
I asked the minister a few moments ago. Before coming to the question I want to ask, may I make a comment somewhat similar to that made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, and which I intended to make as a result of studying this item earlier. At the top of the page in these further supplementary estimates we find it stated "the details on page No. 47". If you look at the print on page 17, where you are supposed to get just the general item, you find this:
Northwest communication system- '
809. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $131,254.
Then if you look at page 47, under the heading "details" you will find that there is less detail on page 47 than there is on page 17. It seems to me that if we are going to get details, then in order to avoid a certain number of questions, if we could just be told where the major works are going to be located for which the money is voted, it would save a lot of questions. Now I come to my question. Where and of what nature are these works?


Lionel Chevrier: I agree with the hon. gentleman. If it were on the main estimates I think he would find a greater amount of detail. Perhaps the detail should have been given in greater amount than it is on page 47 to which he has referred; but I am glad to give it to him now. This again is capital expenditure for the northwest communication system. There is $43,000 set aside for an additional three-channel telephone carrier system from Edmonton to Grande Prairie; then $88,267 for the replacement of communications equipment at Koidern in the Yukon territory. Those are the two big items making up the amount of $131,254. As to the last item, replacement of communications equipment, that equipment was destroyed by fire.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was destroyed by fire, the minister says. I was going to ask the minister whether this system is being extended, but I think perhaps his last statement explains the matter.


Lionel Chevrier: It is being replaced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is no extension of the system.


Lionel Chevrier: None at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
Airways and airports-
811. Airway and airport traffic control-further amount required, $82,018.
Angus MacInnis: This is rather a substantial item. There is not much detail given here.

Supply-Transport
I wonder if the minister could give a little bit more information with regard to it.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This additional amount is for the operation of a tower at Torbay, Newfoundland, and one at North Bay, Ontario, to the amount of $13,538 each. The rest is increase in salaries. It is mostly a salary vote. It is the other item that deals with construction.


Angus MacInnis: I have just one other question and it merely has to do with airports. May I ask the minister if there has been any progress in the negotiations between the city of Vancouver and his department in connection with the purchase by the Department of Transport of the airport at Vancouver.


Lionel Chevrier: I suppose I could answer that question best by using the Latin maxim festina lente.


Angus MacInnis: That is quite clear to me, but it may not be to some other hon. members.


Lionel Chevrier: The progress is proceeding slowly. We have had a number of talks, both in Ottawa and in Vancouver, in connection with the taking over of the Vancouver airport. There are some difficulties in the way but I am happy to say that they are not of a major nature. I am hopeful that, before the fall session, I will be able to make some arrangement with the municipal authorities in Vancouver.


Percy Chapman Black: There is a wide variety of items having to do with air services, with the airports and so on. I have just made a rough addition; they would appear to run to a total of about $40 million. I would ask the minister what the department has done with respect to keeping the airport at Amherst, Nova Scotia, in repair so that it will be in a state of usefulness. It was an important airfield during the last war. I suppose there is no other field in all of Canada that is so well constructed and so useful, having regard to the money expended on it, partly by the municipality and partly by the different government departments at that time. But after the war it seemed to be a sort of deserted child and the minister and his department would not assume or did not assume responsibility for keeping it in repair, although used casually and largely as an emergency field. Will the minister say that his department has made any expenditures on it this year? Is it the purpose to do so to keep it at least in suitable condition as an emergency field to look after emergency landings? I do not know that it is necessary for me to impress upon

the minister the necessity of a field of this kind during periods of stress such as we are passing through.


Lionel Chevrier: I remember that some question was asked on a previous occasion. I have to draw on my memory to answer the question. My recollection is that there is no amount in the main estimates or in the sup-plementaries to deal with the airport at Amherst. My recollection also is that the airport is not the property of the Department of Transport. In fact I think I had some correspondence with the hon. member and certainly with the mayor of the municipality of Amherst. My recollection is that that correspondence indicated that the title to a large part of the airport was still with the municipality, and that the present position is that it may be declared surplus.


Percy Chapman Black: I think the
minister is in error. If I remember correctly, the mayor of the town of Amherst communicated with him and his department and informed him that title is still held by the department. The town of Amherst has not taken it over or assumed the responsibility for its maintenance. I think certainly the outlying parts of the field were leased not by the municipality of Amherst but by the department. It is perfectly reasonable that it should be so. This also indicates that the ownership of this airfield still rests with the government and with the Department of Transport. I again point out that it is in the general interest that this field be kept in repair. It will require no large sum to keep it in repair, but it should be kept in repair as an emergency field. It is a useful field for casual landings.
In view of what has been done by the municipality in its construction and in the care of it, I think it is only fair to the town of Amherst that the department assume its responsibility and keep it in serviceable condition.


Lionel Chevrier: I would be glad to look into it. My memory is not too clear, because there is quite a lot of correspondence that goes across my desk. I know there is some difficulty about title, part of which may be in the crown, but I know that part of it is also in the municipality. However, I shall be glad to look into it further.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-Construction services-
812. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $629,400.
Gordon Francis Higgins: Will the minister tell me what is being done at Gander?


Lionel Chevrier: There is in this item, consisting of $629,400, $115,000 for Baie Comeau and $20,000 for Torbay. There is nothing here for Gander. The amount for Gander was voted in the main estimates.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is there anything for Goose?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there is a small amount for Goose, about $10,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
814. Contributions, as specified in the details of the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the occupation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities-further amount required, $17,210.
Mr. Fraser:: Will the minister say whether any of the foreign governments pay us anything?


Lionel Chevrier: No; the foreign governments do not pay us anything. The foreign governments pay into the fund the amount required for the maintenance of these facilities. This is a responsibility which we have taken arising out of the international civil aviation organization, a specialized organization of the United Nations. We pay our proportionate share of this just as other countries belonging to ICAO pay their proportionate share.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes, but we are paying this on behalf of the government of Iceland and also the government of Denmark.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, and so do all the other members of the specialized agency of ICAO which is under the United Nations aegis; the United States, United Kingdom, France, and the Benelux countries all pay a proportionate share to this fund.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Into this fund?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Percy Chapman Black: Will the minister place on Hansard or make available a statement showing the different maintenance appropriations paid to all the airfields in Canada?


Lionel Chevrier: That is a tabulation that I cannot give offhand, because I would have to look at the main estimates and the supplementary estimates, but it is a thing that I could get for my hon. friend.


Percy Chapman Black: I would be very pleased if the minister would get it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
817. Steamship subventions for ocean services- Pacific Ocean-Canada, New Zealand and Australia, service between, and if either or both the governments of Australia and of New Zealand should
Supply-National Defence
request or authorize the Canadian maritime commission to act on its or their behalf in contracting for this service, the Canadian maritime commission is hereby empowered so to act, $166,667.
George Randolph Pearkes: Is any assistance given to
maintain the Aorangi?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, the vote to cover our
proportionate share, together with New Zealand and Australia, of the subsidy required in order to look after the annual operation and maintenance of the Aorangi.


George Randolph Pearkes: This will be adequate to
maintain that service between Canada, New Zealand and Australia?


Lionel Chevrier: For this fiscal year it
will, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall now call the estimates of the Department of National Defence and consider item 245, the details of which appear on page 269. According to the agreed procedure we are considering the details appearing on that page. We are now considering "materials and supplies" which is listed as sub-item 12.
Materials and supplies, $5,263,500.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will the minister explain
this sub-item? There is a very big increase there which I think requires some explanation. It is an increase from $71,800 to $5,263,500, which is fairly substantial.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Yes. Here I think I should
answer the question that I promised to answer for the hon. member for Calgary East which appears at page 3441 of Hansard of May 25, when we appeared here on our sixth day. The sub-item previous to this item was passed subject to my giving this information, the details of the $122,500. Of that amount $51,500 is available for transfer to the Department of National Health and Welfare in regard to civil defence, leaving $71,000. Of that, $43,000 is for administration, $24,000 for public relations, and $4,000 for inspection services. A good part of that covers forms, and that totals the sum of $71,000.
In answer to the hon. member for Nanaimo as to the details of item $5,263,500, by far the biggest proportion of this increase is due to civil defence. That accounts for $4,303,500, and then there is also an addition of $960,000 for inspection services due to increased services.
Sub-item agreed to.

Supply-National Defence
Acquisition and- construction of buildings and works including acquisition of land, $3,350,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: This is a new item and it is rather large. At the risk of probably calling forth a repetition of the Biblical reference the minister made to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, will he please tell us what this is?


Brooke Claxton: Three million dollars of the $3,350,000 is for plans and possible acquisition of land for a new national defence headquarters. It is contemplated that at some future date we shall have to move from Cartier square. That is provided for in the federal district plan. This item is to provide for the commencement of plans and the acquisition of property. Neither has been decided upon yet. There is $350,000 for civil defence for construction of buildings for a training school and this was dealt with by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Harkness:: If I understand the minister aright, they have not started the new building for national defence headquarters and there is no likelihood that this $3,000,000 will be required this year?


Brooke Claxton: That is now so. If we were able now to get started this year we would only be able to acquire the property and commence the preparation of the plans.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the $3,000,000 cover both the acquisition of property and the proposed construction? The minister has just said that all that is likely to happen this year is the acquisition of the property. Does the $3,000,000 cover both or just the acquisition of property?


Brooke Claxton: Both.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why do we
budget now for $3,000,000 when the minister thinks that there is really no chance of anything more than the acquisition of property being proceeded with?


Brooke Claxton: This is a commitment authority to enable us to to spend that amount should it be possible. If it were found possible or desirable to spend it this year, then we could spend it, but it is not contemplated that the whole amount will be spent this year.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is not that amount in the position where it could be switched, say to sundries, under this same general item?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think that is a very good way of estimating, to put in an item of $3,000,000 for the acquisition of land and construction of buildings which there is no intention of building this year. In other words,

you are not going to use the $3,000,000 for that; you may use only $100,000 or $300,000, and the remainder of the $3,000,000 can be put into any of these other items. It makes for rather loose administration, I should think.


Brooke Claxton: That is true of any item in this vote 245. We are endeavouring to provide a defence program for three years costing $5,000 million. We are endeavouring to achieve just as much of that program each year as we can with the money provided by parliament.


Douglas Scott Harkness: While all that is true, it still seems to me it removes parliamentary control over these expenditures, which is the very purpose of our dealing with the matter in this committee. If it were not for parliament exercising some control over these estimates it would be useless in theory for us to deal with them. Putting in an item of this sort, which can be switched to any other item which the minister decides would be a good one, really removes that parliamentary control. I do not think this is the type of thing we should be considering.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My recollection is that last year authority was granted, first of all, for so much by way of expenditures and then there was a total figure for commitments. Is there a similar figure here? I cannot spot it at the moment. Is there an over-all figure for commitments as against expenditures? Perhaps it is in the estimates and I have missed it.


Brooke Claxton: This was all covered in my preliminary statement. On page 36 we have item 245 which reads:
To provide for the defence forces of the navy, army and air services and defence research and development, and to authorize total commitments for this purpose of $3,831,270,000-
And then later on:
-against which commitments it is estimated that actual expenditures in 1951-52 will not exceed $1,595,050,000-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How much of this $3,000,060 item we are talking about now is in the $1,595,050,000? That seems to be relevant.


Brooke Claxton: A total of $1,100,000 is the estimate of possible expenditure on this account this year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am still puzzled. We have this figure of $3,000,000 which we pass as an item for expenditure, and we are now told that only $1,100,000 of that is included in the amount estimated for total expenditures. I must say that I agree

with the hon. member for Calgary East that it gets rather confusing. I hardly know where I am at. It seems to me that the net result is that we have $1,900,000 that is sort of floating about in no man's land, available to be dealt with in whatever way seems most convenient. Like the hon. member for Calgary East, I think this is budgeting which is really not budgeting at all.


Brooke Claxton: This method of dealing with the estimates of this department has been explained each year. Greater details have been given this year in accordance with the recommendations made by the comptroller of the treasury and the public accounts committee. However, the principle of dealing with these items is exactly the same; there is no change.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Maybe we have been at fault in the past, but that does not mean that we should go on. In fact, I think we were at fault in the past. I still want to know if the needs of the department, which we all want to meet, would not be satisfied by voting the $1,100,000? Why do we have to clutter it up with this additional amount? I must confess that I have never felt satisfied about this commitment figure. It always perplexed me. When you get an actual case of this kind I must confess that it does not make sense at all. We are apparently authorizing a commitment which we are told in advance there is no real expectation of needing.


Brooke Claxton: The answer to this has been given on a good many occasions, and it is not a simple subject. We have to make a plan for a new defence headquarters or some other construction. In order to make that plain we have to ask architects to get to work, and we have to acquire property. Then we proceed with that as far as we can during that fiscal year, but in order to make contracts we have to have commitment authority in respect not only to the current fiscal year but also with reference to future fiscal years. In order to provide flexibility, in order to enable us to carry out the total program over the planned period of three years, this has been found by the Department of Finance and this department to be the best way in which we can do it.
The alternatives to the course we are following would be to ask parliament for a very much larger sum of money in the cash vote than we could possibly spend in order to get on with each one of a thousand different projects, some of which would be accomplished and others of which would not. But in order to provide for the possibility of each one of them being accomplished we
Supply-National Defence would have to ask parliament for 100 per cent of each particular project. We avoid that by asking for a large vote under one single item with commitment authority in respect of future years and the current year.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think I remember more clearly now. It seems to me that the explanation given to us, and a very natural and proper explanation too, was that the department needed to have certain commitment authority because it had to contract for things during the year which might take two or three years to be completed. That is perfectly intelligible, and I am not questioning it at all. This item seems to me to be somewhat different. As I understand this item of $3,350,000, and with reference to the expectation of what they need to contract for this year, the minister has told us that $1,100,000 is the expectation, the outside likelihood, of what they will need. After all, if they underestimate they can if necessary come back, but in the meantime we have this definite item, and it does not seem to me to come within the principle that the minister has outlined in other cases, and which I think I understand. It seems to me that we are being asked to vote over $3 million instead of $1,100,000.


Brooke Claxton: If all the plans we made with respect to this item and every other item mentioned in the details at page 269 were accomplished during the fiscal year 1951-52 we would need $3,350,000 for this item. However, our experience is we cannot do everything we plan. We cannot do it that fast, and sometimes it is not desirable that we should. Therefore for the current fiscal year the amount that was expected to be spent on a headquarters out of the $3,350,000 is $1,100,000.


George Randolph Pearkes: With respect to the construction item for new headquarters, in the Department of Public Works would they not follow the procedure of revoting next year the amount which was not spent? This seems to be a more flexible method, and perhaps not quite such a desirable method because there may be too much flexibility. I believe that there is the power, with the authority of the treasury board-and I should like to be corrected if I am wrong-for the minister to transfer this amount to any other building or buildings, the acquiring of equipment, and so forth. Would it not be preferable to follow a more or less uniform policy in different departments, and, when it comes to the question of a building, vote the amount of money for the building and have it definitely earmarked? Then if it is not expended it can be revoted for the same building next year, as is done in the Department of Public
4734	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence Works. It seems to me that the Minister of Public Works has a more reliable system of seeing that the taxpayers' money is kept within certain channels rather than this loose way of doing it in the Department of National Defence.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member for Nanaimo is quite right that for everything that is done under this vote the approval of treasury board has to be secured. The arrangement is flexible, and it is designedly flexible. We could not possibly contemplate a construction program of over $300 million this year without great flexibility because we do not know how much we will be able to have contracted for and completed within the building season. This depends on supply of materials and labour which are uncertain. Therefore it is virtually certain that we will not be able to complete all of this over $300 million construction program. How much we will be able to complete will depend on local conditions, labour, materials and so on, and also the supply of equipment from other countries. Great flexibility is required at a time of great development.


George Alexander Drew: Every answer that has been given with respect to this item is one that demonstrates that we cannot rely on these figures. One of the purposes of bringing these estimates before the house is so that members will accept some responsibility for passing the items. The minister says that they must go before treasury board, but that does not in any way meet the responsibility of members to vote money. Our responsibility to vote money is perhaps the highest responsibility of members of parliament, to vote money with knowledge of what it is we are approving. When the minister says it is convenient to put in the whole amount for this particular plan and that is a satisfactory method, I would point out it is entirely contrary to the procedure that is adopted with respect to other construction of a very similar nature.
On January 2 this year it was officially announced that it had been decided to construct a new atomic reactor. The government's statement issued on that day indicated that the government would be spending $30 million on the new reactor. If hon. members will look at the estimates under the national research council and atomic energy control board on page 40, they will find that, although the plan has been stated by the government to cost $30 million, item 308 of the estimates under the heading "construction of a new reactor" is $7 million. The reason for that is that the department only expects to spend $7 million this year.
[Mr. Pearkes.l

Then again we have a similar situation with respect to television. We have been told that the government expenditure on television is to be a figure considerably in excess of the amount set aside this year. The amount included for that work, which we hope will be undertaken some time, is only an amount estimated to correspond to the amount spent this year. As I understand, one of the things that the Auditor General has been emphasizing over and over again in his reports is the obligation of those preparing the estimates to prepare them in a way that makes it possible for members to deal with them with some belief that they represent the actual amount that parliament is voting in a particular year for a particular purpose. In this case we are confronted with a figure of $3,350,000, yet we are told it is not expected that more than $1,450,000 of that will be spent. The minister says it is necessary to have flexibility. If a flexible sum is to be appropriated for purposes other than those designated, then there should be an entry showing that there is a figure to be allocated for any general purposes not covered by the specific items. We then would know we were voting an amount for that purpose.
It will be recalled that when this subject was under discussion last year in the public accounts committee it was indicated that there was what was described as a cushion of 10 per cent in a great many cases in the preparation of the estimates. That was a 10 per cent variable factor to provide for the possibility that expenditures might exceed by 10 per cent the amount estimated. But this is not a 10 per cent cushion; this is a cushion of approximately 100 per cent, and hon. members must immediately ask themselves how much of a cushion there is in this figure of $1,490 million. We are not here to vote cushions; we are to vote dollars, and we should be voting dollars with the knowledge that what we are voting is to be used for a particular purpose. When we ask that this should be the recognized method, then we should be realistic and prepared to concede that there may be need for some sum to be provided for contingencies. I should think the best way to do that would be to set up a contingency fund to be applied wherever it is required, if in fact it is required at all. It must be remembered that we are to meet again on October 9, and there is a practice of providing any additional money needed by supplementary estimates. That is a system by which this government can meet its requirements. In addition, if any further money is needed and it is not provided during the session that will begin early in October, we will meet again well before March 31 of

next year. At that time we can deal in a regular and proper way, by further supplementary estimates, with any amounts required.
To pass this vote with the explanation that has been given would simply be a declaration by the members of this house that with regard to a huge item of $1,490 million we do not have the slightest idea what it is we are really approving. In view of the answers given I suggest that the minister should agree to let this item stand or to reduce it to the amount he has said will be spent.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


George Alexander Drew: If this is carried with the explanation that has been given the members of this house might as well say now that they are not going to make any real attempt to examine the estimates, and that they are going to vote huge sums of money without being given any of the substantial and material facts as to how much of that money is to be spent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just following what the leader of the opposition has said I want to read a statement by the Minister of Public Works on June 21, describing the technique followed in his department, at page 4477 of Hansard:
We get an initial vote, we prepare plans, we acquire a site, we ask for tenders, we give a contract, but that contract may take one, two or three years to complete. We try to have as exact an amount as possible in our estimates.
The Department of National Defence has a different process. Where they are acquiring war materials we recognize that fact, and we recognize the special circumstances in which the vote is made. But for the life of me I cannot see that this item, having to do with the proposed building for headquarters, differs in any way from the kind of thing the Department of Public Works does, or why it should be dealt with in this way. Incidentally we are providing a very easy way for the Minister of Finance to have a surplus. Quite apart from that, however, it seems to me incredible that the minister can expect to have economy or that we can expect him to have economy if large sums of money are voted in this omnibus way and the money just left lying around loose.


Brooke Claxton: As I said before, the basis of making up these estimates is not established by me; I do my best to explain them. We have a construction program which lists all the projects we believe should be done to carry out the three-year program for the armed forces of Canada. They run into hundreds of items, a great many of which cannot be carried out in any one year andi S0709-301
Supply-National Defence many of which cannot even be begun this year. We put in the estimates the amount involved both in the way of cash and current year's commitment authority.
As hon. members will notice on looking at item 245 on page 36, if everything listed here were to be carried out the total amount of this year's estimates is $1,924,170,835. Of that it is estimated that total expenditures this year will not exceed $1,595,050,000, of which $183,050,000 is provided under the appropriation act of 1950. The amount we are asking for in the total vote is $1,412,000,000, and the total commitment authority for this and future years provided for in this vote is $3,831,270,000.
That is the way it has been put before this house for the last four years. I think the hon. member for Greenwood has a point. If this were the only item of the kind in our vote we should deal with it in exactly the same way as it would be dealt with by the Department of Public Works, but since it is not we have dealt with it in the same way as the other construction items and provided for both cash and commitment authority. With a total construction program for this year of about $330 million I do not see how it would be humanly possible to list the items in the same detail as in a static department. Then we would not get the job done at all.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I think we are back to the basic difficulty as far as the estimates of this department are concerned. The minister says they have been brought down in this form for the last four years. I would remind him that for the last four years I have complained that practically the entire amount we are asked to vote for national defence has been in one item. In this case it is item 245, and the amount is $1,412 million. This means that any money covered by these sub-items given in the details at the back of the book can be moved around and used in any way the minister wishes. I have never been able to see why the department did not return to the method followed before the war and all through the war, of preparing their estimates much the same as any other department does. If they did that in this case we would have as one item the salary and motorcar allowance of the minister. The next item would be departmental administration; the next would be imperial war graves commission; the next would be navy, central administration, or something like that.
If the estimates were prepared in that way, as is done by every other department, we could have our discussion on each one and get it out of the way. We would know the money voted for a particular item, if it were departmental administration, would be spent

Supply-National Defence on departmental administration, that it would not be spent on a building in the Yukon or something else along that line. This method of presenting the estimates of this department, as I observed when I spoke on this matter first this evening, really removes parliamentary control over the spending of the Department of National Defence. What actually happens is that we vote the department a lump sum, in this case about a billion and half dollars, and then the department can do what they like with it. So far as I can see there are no restraints as to how they spend it. They can spend it on the details in the back of the book or they may not spend it on them. They can spend it any way they like. The ordinary system which has been in existence for so long, so far as English parliamentary institutions are concerned, disappears. We have lost the financial control which we are supposed to exercise, and for which we are responsible.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has said, and I am grateful to him for saying so, that if this transaction could be isolated it could be dealt with in the same way as similar transactions are dealt with in the Department of Public Works; that is putting it very frankly. I have said to the minister that we recognize there are certain things in the Department of National Defence which have special features of their own, and which must be dealt with specially in voting the money. But nothing the minister has said tonight has convinced me that there is any reason in the world why this particular item of headquarters cannot be dealt with in precisely the way which the Minister of Public Works indicated was done in his department, and which I read a few minutes ago.
So far as I can see what is really happening is that we are being asked to vote money in a huge vacuum. The minister has told us, incidentally, that this is not the only case where we have this vague figure of commitment, as well as the figure of supposed expenditure. Therefore I want to check with the minister as to whether I am right in my understanding of his figure, that actually of the $3 million-and it was $3 million I believe which was mentioned in connection with the proposed headquarters-there is no expectation that more than $1,100,000 would be expended this year? If I am right in that figure, then I propose to move that this item be reduced by the difference between these figures, in other words by $1,900,000. I am basing that on my understanding of the figures the minister gave me.
In other words, what I am suggesting is that we should vote what money the department requires for the purpose which the

minister has indicated, but not vote the additional $1,900,000 of authority. I shall point out, at the risk of being a little tiresome, that I distinguish in my own mind this transaction, especially and definitely, from the other transactions where we have recognized that there must be future commitments authorized by reason of the fact the department must make contracts for munitions of war and other things which may take years to be completed. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move -unless the minister wishes to correct my figures, and I am ready to correct the figures so as to leave in the estimates the amount which I understood him to say was required. Subject to his correction, I move that $1,900,000 toe struck off this item.


Brooke Claxton: I hope I can persuade the hon. member that that would not be a good thing to do. The situation regarding the Department of National Defence and the Department of Public Works with respect to this varies only in size. Perhaps I gave the wrong impression before, but if you look at page 373, for example, and the same is true of other details of the estimates of public works, you will see on page 373 a total for New Brunswick of $2,641,500, less estimated amounts by which actual expenditure on all listed projects will fall short of the total amounts that may be required for each $110,000. The amount stated there is $2,531,500.


George Alexander Drew: On what page is that?


Brooke Claxton: Page 373, dealing with public works. There are similar items throughout the votes of the Department of Public Works. If you look at the details of the votes-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I interrupt the minister there? This is doing what I am suggesting; it is deducting the amount not expected to be required during the year. That is what I am doing.


Brooke Claxton: We do exactly the same, and that is the point I am trying to make. If you look at the vote for national defence on page 275, you see "total defence services program", $1,924,170,835.
Less estimated amount to be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act 1950 as supplemented by item 426, $183,050,000.
Estimated amount for commitments nominally to fall due during the fiscal year, in accordance with the program detailed above, but not required for actual expenditures in that year, $329,120,835.
This makes a deduction of $512,170,835, leaving a total for defence services, estimated actual expenditure, $1,412,000,000. This is

the figure which appears in the main estimates at page 36.
Now, included in the amount of $329,120,835, is $1,900,000 in respect of this building. Those estimates were prepared during the months of December and January, and when they took their present form it was not known how much of which construction we could do. We would have liked to proceed with the preparation of plans, the acquisition of property and possibly the excavation of a foundation for a national defence headquarters, but it has not proved desirable to start that yet. This estimate of expenditure and commitment authority for this year of $3 million was reduced to $1,100,000.
If the hon. member's motion were carried, it would affect not the commitment authority and the plans for this year, but the cash available to meet this and other items that we hope to be able to do with the money voted by parliament. I would suggest, therefore, that perhaps with that explanation I have given it would not be necessary for him to press the motion.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to
be very sure of that. Does the minister now say, contrary to what I think we all understood before, that this deduction which I proposed to make by my motion is actually made in those figures on page 275? Does he say that in this figure of $329 million which is deducted from the $1,924,000,000, there is included this figure of $1,900,000: in other words, that the actual estimated expenditure of $1,412,000,000 includes only the $1,100,000 for this building?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then that
is a very different story from what we had before, and I certainly withdraw my motion, because according to what the minister now says what I wanted to do is done by those figures.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to ask one
more question, if I may. Suppose none of this $3 million is spent on the acquisition of this property or in the preparation of the plans. How much of that $3 million would the minister, if he felt it was necessary to do so, be able to transfer, with the approval of the treasury board, to, let us say, the printing of departmental reports? Would it be the whole amount or that amount less the amount that is quoted?


Brooke Claxton: $1,100,000 cash.


George Randolph Pearkes: But not the $3 million.


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Alexander Drew: Is the minister in a position
to give us a list of those items that are 80709-3011
Supply-National Defence included in the $329 million? If he were able to give us a list, we would then have the same information that we are furnished with in the estimates to which he referred us on page 273, where we are able to see the exact deduction in relation to a particular item.


Brooke Claxton: No. Those are estimates.


George Alexander Drew: Those are what?


Brooke Claxton: Estimates.


George Alexander Drew: They are all estimates that we are dealing with.


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: That is the best answer that
we have had this year: we are dealing with estimates. Of course we are. What I am asking is, whether we can have the estimated details of the deductions. Let us keep together on this matter as much as possible.


Brooke Claxton: Surely.


George Alexander Drew: If the minister is able to say
with certainty-and he has-that there is included in the figure of $329 million, the figure which the hon. member for Greenwood just moved should be deducted from the $3,350,000 appearing on page 269, then he must have some records that show it. If he has those records, he can then give us those records. Then we will be able to go along, item by item, and know what deductions are included in the $329 million as against the particular items that we will be examining. Either the minister knows what is included or he does not. If he knows what is included, there must be a list of detailed figures that make up the $329 million. Has he those figures available?


Brooke Claxton: I can give the hon. member
the way in which the $329 million is arrived at, and I can give it to him, for example, with regard to the navy, the army, the air force, defence research and administration.


George Alexander Drew: All right.


Brooke Claxton: Then I can tell, him that,
in the calculation of the items relative to manpower, the figure is worked out on the basis of the anticipated intake and the anticipated cost of food, allowances and so on. With regard to construction, what we do there is to arrive at the total program and then make an estimate across the board, based on our current experience, as to how much we are likely to complete. The same thing is done with regard to equipment. I can therefore tell him the basis on which the figure is arrived at, and from that the details could be worked out if that was desirable and useful.

Supply-National Defence


George Alexander Drew: I think it is most desirable and most useful, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I think there is an obligation resting on members to ask for and to get this information before passing these estimates. We are told tonight, for the first time, that this item of $3,350,000 described as being for acquisition and construction of buildings and works including acquisition of land, is for a new national defence headquarters here in Ottawa. Then we are told that of that amount, $1,450,000 is to be spent. Then the minister tells us that while it is true that this figure shown on page 269 is not to be spent or that it is not anticipated that it will be spent in 1951-52, there is in fact a deduction made in respect of the amount which it is not expected will be spent, and that that deduction, while not shown separately, is included in the bulk figure of $512,170,835 appearing at page 275. Let us examine that figure. That figure is made up of two items. The sum of $183,050,000 is to be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246. That is not a variable factor. The variable factor comes in next. It is:
Estimated amount for commitments nominally to fall due during the fiscal year, in accordance with the program detailed above, but not required for actual expenditure in that year, $329,120,835.
The minister has told us that the amount by which the figure of $3,350,000 exceeds the actual amount to be spent this year is to be found in that figure. All I am pointing out is that if he can say that definitely, then he must have some set of figures and some statement which makes it possible for him to tell us that this is so. For that very reason I suggest that, in discussing the other items, it is essential that we know how this item of $329,120,835 is made up.


Brooke Claxton: I can give my hon. friend the information quickly and shortly with regard to the item under consideration, for administration. Of the item for administration totalling $13,419,162 appearing at page 269, the only item included in that $329,120,835 is $1,900,000 applicable to this item for construction in respect of the national defence headquarters. All the other is for cash.


George Alexander Drew: But, Mr. Chairman, that does not tell us how that figure is made up. The minister has quite properly informed us that these figures are prepared by those who actually do the detailed estimating of these items. But after all, he is asking the committee to accept certain figures. This figure was not just pulled out of some grab bag; the figure must be related to some understandable process of computation. I am simply asking that
[Mr. Claxton.l

the minister inform us in a clear and understandable way how the figure of $329 million is arrived at.


Brooke Claxton: I have already done that with regard to the item under discussion, Mr. Chairman. I have said that the only provision made in the item of $329 million is the $1,900,000 in respect of national defence headquarters in so far as the figure for administration appearing at page 269 is concerned. With regard to the others, as we come to them in the navy, the army and the air force, I can give both the totals and the way in which they are arrived at. I think that should be plain enough.


George Alexander Drew: If that is so, it is obvious that the minister has a list of the items that make up the total of $329 million. I am pointing out to him that we would be able to proceed in a much more orderly way if we were furnished with that list now; then, as we proceed, we can compare the amount that is included in this total of deductions as set off against the particular items that we will be considering.


Brooke Claxton: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I have not such a list. I thought I had indicated that. But I can give the information, I believe, as we pass along to each branch. It has not been sorted out in the way the hon. member would like it, but we have it; and I have given it with regard to the item under discussion, for administration. The commitment authority in respect of the present fiscal year, which we do not expect to expend and which is included in the sum of $329 million, is the one item of $1,900,000 in respect of this building under discussion.


George Alexander Drew: It is difficult within parliamentary rules to use words that properly describe the answers that we are receiving. We are dealing with figures running into enormous sums of money; we are dealing with one item that is equal to almost half the total amount that this parliament is called upon to vote during the current year. Here we have a figure of $329 million, which is a deduction from the over-all total. Obviously that must be computed by some process of arithmetic. Any child at school would be expected, when he was arriving at some total figure, to be able to explain the process by which he arrived at that figure, and I do not think that the Minister of National Defence who is asking this house for the approval of a figure of $1,490,000,000 on this particular item should ask us to accept these figures unless he can at least give us the simple arithmetical process by which the figure of $329 million is arrived at.


Brooke Claxton: I do not want to repeat myself more often than necessary. I think I have explained this very thoroughly, but on page 269 there is an item "Acquisition and construction of buildings and works, including acquisition of land." That is the sub-item under discussion. We agreed to discuss these by sub-items. No. 13 in the categories set out by the Auditor General is for $3,350,000. Of that, $3 million is for national defence headquarters. I have explained the situation regarding that. I have said that of that amount $1,900,000 is not contemplated to be spent this year. I have said that that $1,900,000 is included in the total of $329 million odd which appears at the end of the estimates of this department at page 275. I have also said that I can give the way in which the $329 million is made up, divided under administration, navy, army, air force and defence research. Then under each appropriate item I can say how the figure is arrived at, and I think that is a full answer.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I refer the minister to page 275 again, and to the other item which I think has not been mentioned yet, and which has also been deducted from the figure of $1,900 million. I refer to the amount of $183,050,000, which is described as the estimated amount to be provided from section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, as supplemented by item 246. Am I correct in understanding that $183 million is an amount voted but not expended during the past year?


Brooke Claxton: Appropriated by act of parliament, and under that act put into the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of replacing equipment which we have transferred to other countries.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I point out that item 245 is the item that is now under discussion. The hon. member, by referring to $183,050,000, which appears on page 275, is referring to an amount that is in relation to item 246, which is the next item. Does the sub-item carry?


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of National Defence has said that as we go through these items he can give us the figures. Now, he first told us a few minutes ago that he could not give us a list of the figures. He tells us on the other hand that as we go through this item he can give us the figures. It is one or the other. Either the minister knows and has the list of figures or he has not. If he has the list of figures then he would greatly facilitate the consideration of this item if he would furnish us
Supply-National Defence with the figures so that we could examine them in advance. The minister is making this house try to get the facts that it should have as a matter of right by the painful process of cross-examination, which he could completely avoid if he would give us the figures which should be in our possession, and that he certainly has in his possession if he is in a position to answer the questions that are now being asked. If the minister is not prepared to give us that list I can only suggest that he is treating this house with complete contempt and trying to get through these estimates without giving us information.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As I understand, Mr. Chairman, you are suggesting that this inquiry with regard to the figure of $183 million, which I thought was relevant since it all bears on the minister's explanation of the total figure of $512 million deducted and relates back to the question that was originally asked, should not be made at this time. I suggest with deference that in order to get the full understanding of this net figure on page 275 we should know a little more about the total figures deducted, the two figures deducted, including the $183 million. If you would permit it, I think the minister was just about to say something about that $183 million. As I understand it, that $183 million was appropriated last year, was available but was not spent. I would be interested if the minister could indicate to us without going into undue detail how it was that $183 million provided last year was not required.


Brooke Claxton: Parliament at the last session voted $300 million for aid to other countries. It was provided that this aid might be furnished in the way either of new equipment or of transfers of equipment; and that in the event of money being needed to replace the equipment that was transferred abroad, that money would be kept in the consolidated revenue fund for the use of the department to replace that equipment.
Hon. members will recall that in November we offered to the North Atlantic treaty nations the equipment for a division. On the recommendation of the standing group that was transferred to the Netherlands. At once we placed an order with the United States for the replacement of that equipment with equipment of United States type. Then the next month we offered the equipment for another division, and on the recommendation of the standing group we transferred that to Belgium. We placed an order for another division's equipment with the United States, and then we offered the equipment for a third division. On the recommendation of the standing group of NATO it was decided
4740	HOUSE OF
Supply-National Defence to transfer this to Italy, and we placed an order with the United States. This $183,050,000 is largely made up of these three items.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that really mean that we carried out our intention of supplying $300 million of equipment to the extent of $117 million; that is, the difference between $183 million and $300 million in cash, and the rest by giving equipment that we already had, or do we consider that we have given the whole $300 million both in -cash and in kind?


Brooke Claxton: No; this provides on balance for the transfer of equipment to the value of $183,050,000. The total amount so far voted for mutual aid to North Atlantic treaty nations is $300,000,000. That was voted last session and we seek an additional $61,383,108 this session which will cover the equipment for the three divisions, other new equipment and in part the cost of air training.


George Randolph Pearkes: Before we get too far away from this particular item and start to deal with equipment and so forth for other countries, may I ask why in a period when there is a great shortage of steel and other building materials, when there is a great demand for private homes all across the country, it should be considered necessary to even consider building a new headquarters for the defence forces? They have substantial buildings not so far from here which were considered ample during the war from which to administer large bodies of troops in all the three services, there being something like 1,000,000 men under arms at that time. Although these buildings are called temporary buildings they are quite substantial as far as I can see, and I pass them almost every day. Why is it necessary to even give consideration to building new national defence headquarters? It seems to me that if there is a shortage of steel what steel might be available should be put in another direction. We know that there is a definite shortage of homes and housing all across the country. Is it really necessary to provide new headquarters for the armed forces?


Brooke Claxton: I can assure the hon. member that his views will receive the most serious consideration. It is necessary that at some future * indefinite date we move from where we are. What that date will be will depend on the need, the availability of materials, labour and so on. At the time these estimates were prepared it was considered that we might prepare plans, get the property and possibly begin the excavation. It was
IMr. Claxton.]

not intended to go any further. Whether or not that will be possible this year remains to be seen.
Sub-item stands.
Progress reported.



TRUST AND LOAN COMPANY OF CANADA


Hughes Cleaver: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I should like to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hughes Cleaver: By leave of the house I move:
That Bill 398, respecting the Trust and Loan Company of Canada, be now read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Motion agreed to -and bill read the second1 time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will proceed with Bill No. 404, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938; Bill No. 405, to amend the Judges Act, 1946; then we will go into supply and consider estimates of national defence, public works, resources and development, post office, citizenship and immigration, national revenue and secretary of state.


George Alexander Drew: Are there any more?


Alphonse Fournier: A few more.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Board of transport commissioners for Canada-
529.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $681,220.
Canadian maritime commission-
530.	Administration, $166,799.
531.	Steamship subventions, as detailed) in the estimates, $3,779,875.
532.	Assistance for Canadian flag ocean shipping industry, $375,000.
National harbours board-
533.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1951 on any or all of the following accounts:

Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Halifax, $1,243,000; Quebec, $22,000; Port Colbome. $112,000; Churchill, $161,000; generally unforeseen and miscellaneous, $200,000; total, $1,738,000.
534.	To provide for payment to national harbours board of the amount hereinafter set forth, to be applied in payment of the deficit (exclusive of interest on dominion government advances and depreciation on capital structures) arising in the calendar year 1951, in the operation of the Churchill harbour, $128,800.
Transport-
Air services-
568.	To authorize and provide for a revolving fund for the purchase of materials and supplies to be held in northwest communications system stores for use on both capital and maintenance works, $100,000.
National harbours board-
569.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1951 on any or all of the following accounts: reconstruction and capital expenditures, Montreal, $1,279,968; Vancouver, $150,000; total, $1,429,968; less amount to be expended from replacement funds, $203,000, $1,226,968.
Transport-
A-Department-
794.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $70,779.
Canal services-
795.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $155,000.
796.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $1,489,597.
797.	To provide for expenses in connection with the St. Lawrence ship canal surveys and investigations-further amount required, $5,000.
Marine services-
Marine service steamers-
798.	Operation, maintenance and repairs-further amount required, $320,355.
799.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $139,500.
Aids to navigation-
800.	Administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $60,000.
Nautical services-
801.	Operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions, as detailed in the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidies to salvage companies, and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 296 of the Canada Shipping Act-further amount required, $27,765.
Pilotage service-
802.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works and new equipment, $119,500.
River St. Lawrence ship channel service-
803.	Administration, operation and maintenance -further amount required, $500,000.
804.	To provide for the replacement of machinery and equipment destroyed by fire in May, 1950, at L'Ecole d'Arts et Metiers de Rimouski, Que.: gross
Supply-Transport
estimated cost, $150,950; less: proceeds of insurance, on machinery and equipment so destroyed, which the department is hereby authorized to pay out of the Department of Transport suspense account for the purposes of this vote, $60,000, $90,950.
Railway and steamship services-
Canadian government railways-
805.	Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port-aux-Basques, Nfld.-capital-further amount required, $500,000.
806.	To provide towards the cost of surveys of Newfoundland railway properties entrusted to the Canadian National Railway Company, $15,000.
Air services-
Telecommunications division-
Airways and! airports-radio aviation services-
807.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $494,000.
Radio Act and regulations-
808.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $57,700.
Northwest communication system-
809.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $131,254.
Meteorological division-
Meteorological services-
810. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $14,000.
Civil aviation division-
Airways and airports-
811.	Airway and airport traffic control-further amount required, $82,018.
Construction services-
812. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-capital-further amount required, $629,400.
813.	Contributions, subject to the approval of the governor in council, to assist municipalities in the development of and improvement to airports, the sites of which have been provided by such municipalities-further amount required, $15,000.
814.	Contributions, as specified in the details of the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities-further amount required, $17,210.
815.	Contribution towards the cost of construction of a landing strip in Goldfields, Saskatchewan area, provided Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited enters into an agreement with His Majesty to furnish the site and to undertake the construction, $80,000.
B-General-
Canadian maritime commission-
816.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $8,000.
817.	Steamship subventions for ocean services_
Pacific Ocean-Canada, New Zealand and Australia, service between, and if either or both the governments of Australia and of New Zealand should request or authorize the Canadian maritime commission to act on its or their behalf in contracting for this service, the Canadian maritime commission is hereby empowered so to act, $166,667.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, June 27, 1951